concerned for the injured and victims

[Lydiot]

Well, that is the problem ... when people neither read nor think about what is written.

If that was directed at me then it was not just wrong but quite presumptuous.

The simple mass is "look for skin and hair color" and it's "racial profiling". Well, actually, if you would read complete and maybe go through the pains to understand that any form of profiling includes not two or three but dozens of parameters, you maybe, maybe, would get the gist ...
After having said that, take Anders Breivik ans an example ...

The racist in you of course can only stare at the pale skin and the blond hair ...

You're the one conflating terms now, not me. You leaped from "skin and hair color" to "racial profiling", which is the correct leap to make, but then continue to "the racist in you". Profiling using race IS racial profiling, duh. It's, you know, the definition of it. Whether or not that's rooted in racism or something else is beside the point, it is what it is and it is what you promote. Just deal with it.

you don't see, he has a history of writing manifests ... you don't see, he was member is shooting clubs ... you don't see, that he lived in some kind of disenfranchised environment for years ... no, you can see only race ... now, does that make me or you the racist?

1: Again, I didn't call you a racist, so quit repeating that.

2: I know very well what he did and didn't do. None of what you just brought up is news to me and to say that I "can see only race" followed by implying that I'm a racist is both stupid and offensive.

3: Further more, do you see that you're actually avoiding the point I'm making? Do you see that you effectively managed to completely avoid answering my question, which wasn't as rhetorical as it sounded? I asked you if it would be reasonable to use white skin, blonde hair and blue eyes as PART OF profiling in Norway. Would that be reasonable to you?

Now, lets take you, Lydiot as example ... no white skin ... dark hair ... I don't know about religion ... hundred of posts on different forums about planes ... aerodynamics ... atcing ... and some pretty provocative left sideline comments crowded with buzzwords.
So, no offense, but you profile as young nerd with a good chance to become an old nerd like me one day ... but not as a terrorist. Just put a lit more work in understanding things like profiling before you regurgitate the buzzwords.

I'm not "young". But I appreciate the underhanded ad hominem attack. A normally effective double-whammy. Kind'a not so much here though.

Having said that, I have to give you one point, even you didn't touch that subject explicitly, profiling and profiling can be a big quality difference. We need standards and quality control mechanisms. But think about it ... those dead people in Brussels ... they don't LIVE anymore in such or any other society. Which is exactly the problem. We have to do something.

And what do you propose we do to profile those who are guilty of the majority of terrorist attacks? Or do you think that the majority of attacks do not warrant profiling including race simply because a) they're not carried out by the correct demographic, and/or b) the means, goals or results aren't as important?

[KL-666]

Fair enough if someone tries to make a high quality profile with many elements in it. But you can not deny that this will be part of it too:

It will be probably a male Muslim between the ages of 20 and 35, he will be with a probability of 88% right handed, he will be with a probability of 93% dark haired and a probability of 97% dark eyed.

The question is: Why do we need to do the high quality profile on people with these traits only,
and forget about the same severe attacks from blue eyed blonds? Why can't we leave the racial elements out of the profile?

Kind regards, Vincent

[Lydiot]

Fair enough if someone tries to make a high quality profile with many elements in it. But you can not deny that this will be part of it too:

It will be probably a male Muslim between the ages of 20 and 35, he will be with a probability of 88% right handed, he will be with a probability of 93% dark haired and a probability of 97% dark eyed.

I don't have the data, but the implications are clear: If you choose the above to weed out those not as likely to be terrorists, then all a person would have to do is dye the hair and wear lenses. It only takes a person with average IQ, if that even, to get around that profile.

See my point?

Further more, what is the practical way of going about such a profile? In the case of the Brussels bombing what happened? Some terrorists walked to places where there were a lot of people and detonated explosives. So where and how would you profile? It'd have to be at those points, right? So, imagine the following location:

Gates - Security - Terminal - Stop zones for vehicles

Right now they blew themselves up before Security. So say they did it in the terminal, for example ticketing. Ok, so if you start profiling people at the ticketing line, what happens? You walk up to someone who looks mid-eastern and ask to see their passport? And when you do, do you scan and check it? And once that's all clear, do you search their luggage and person? Because if that's what you're going to do, and you actually find a terrorist, he/she will just detonate the bomb anyway. Why? Because they're already standing where the crowd is.

And if the ticketing area in the Terminal isn't the place you're profiling people, then where would you do it? Move it to outside the terminal where people get dropped off and picked up with taxis, or the train connections? Hopefully there'd be less people there, but there probably still are a lot of them. Exactly the same problem with subways. We just keep moving the point where people are checked.

And so as far as I can see the only other way to profile people using those criteria would be in the open, relatively far from subway stations and airports, and away from crowds (because if they're already in a crowd, as I said, they'd just detonate). And then it really does start to look really awful. Profiling dark haired, dark eyed, probably olive-skinned people on the street, somewhat randomly.... Like I said, not something I would like to experience. And it probably makes this "integration" people talk about even harder.

The question is: Why do we need to do the high quality profile on people with these traits only,
and forget about the same severe attacks from blue eyed blonds? Why can't we leave the racial elements out of the profile?

Kind regards, Vincent

That was my point indeed.

And, as I said, these sorts of arguments tend to come from people that are in a majority, demographically speaking, and against those who commit crimes they feel are more important. Instead, I would argue that the basic principle should be put in place for most crimes if it's going to be used. So if we profile for Muslim terrorists, then it stands to reason we do the same for animal-rights terrorists, eco-terrorists, right-wing / left-wing terrorists, white-power racist terrorists, separatist terrorists etc. And, since they constitute the majority of terrorist events, as opposed to Islamist acts, the profile quickly becomes so diluted that it's no longer useful.

[jwocky]

@Lydiot: You brought the point of racial profiling up with your "I have no white skin and dark hair" and you did it in the usual way as if this would be only about race. So, you were the one obsessed with race. The point stands. And to make it worse, you had to go next for the white Christian line ... no, you obviously had no obsession with race ... you did even write, most bombers are white Christians. Well, actually not, but the idea to ignore the numbers shows of course the degree of obsession when someone feels the need to ignore the reality to be able to make accusations merely and alone based on race ...

@Vincent: Of course, hair colour and skin colour are parts of a good profile. And yes, ethnicity is too. It would be naive to let that out. Ethnicity is a part of cultural background and the cultural background forms often, what people do. And they also form what other people do. That is maybe not nice, but it is what life is.
So, I spoke about neighbourhoods like Molenbeck or Little Tchetchenia and so on. Cultural bubbles with a 80% of more of non-integrated population, culturally different from the surrounding population. Most of them are poor and even those who aren't feel everywhere where they have to live and work with the general population as outsiders. As a consequence, they encapsulate even more in their own culture and they can do so because there is a whole social-cultural bubble in which they can. That enforces the cultural identity of the bubble. They are not forced to integrate and therefore, they don't. But in the bigger view, they feel disenfranchised, second class citizens, in conflict with the authorities and the population around. It's a lawless zone.
Up to this point, you can maybe argue, screw them, they have a right to live as lousy as they want. Personally, I think, high unemployment and low education is not a good prospect, but well, you can say, screw them and be a good boy and say "no racial profiling" ...
Now, here is the point. For Islamist terror organizations, this is a recruiting base. They are part of the same cultural background, they have access, they have the logistics and they have the specialists doing eact that kind of racial-cultural profiling, only they use it for recruiting. They play right into those feelings, into the very same self-perception in those bubbles, we are forced to ignore. So they recruit.
So, there is a process going on. You can't recruit terror operatives from a bunch of angry young men. First you can only recruit sympathizers. A lot of them. Now, if you have a lot of people, you have always some who are in trouble. Unemployed, poor, no way out? A divorce maybe? Some trouble with the police after a criminal career? Or someone with deep sitting personality disorders? Someone with self-esteem problems? There are a lot of those in those bubbles. No jobs, no perspectives reduces self-esteem. Get a group of people together, any group, and you have a number of those cases. No way out, desperation, lack of self-esteem or just being blindsided by some good lookinf ideology with a lot of promise and goaded by some "leader" figures. Things get even worse when religion is involved because then there is this otherworldly legitimation and the promise of a reward in the afterlife.
Have you ever heard of terms like "Black Paladin Syndrome" and "Black King Syndrome"? Typical examples for "black paladins" are Mohammed Atta and Anders Breivik. Lack of success in one or several areas of life led to lack of self-esteem. To compensate for that, they subscribe to a cause. Any cause, as long as it is big mouthed, loud and flashy and has this touch of a call bigger than a mortal man alone. But over time, the "dose" of being better, more important, more of a radiant paladin for a cause, they need increases. And since those causes include this fantasy of being bigger than a single mortal, there comes the point, where being the knight of the round table, the holy warrior, the defender of western culture or whatever, becomes more important than the won life. You can compare that with a drug addict who will kill himself at some point just to feed the habit.
In those cultural non-integrated bubbles, you have not one potential black paladin, you have hundreds. Many of them though will not go down that road without a nudge. They have still families, friends, maybe made their individual attempts of integration. Many of them can live forever on this dangerous edge.
Here is, where the "black king" comes in. Typical examples are David Khoresh (and some other cult leaders), Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki. The black king starts often out as a bullied kid in school. There is nevertheless some basic self-esteem. The dream early formed is to have power and thus the first symptom is the legitimation of otherworldly power. Osama bin Laden for example, a very weak and bullied kid in his school days, discovered religion as such a legitimation early. His line against the bullies was "I am holier than you". To stress that point, he buried himself in Quaran studies and took an almost Jesus like stance.
The black king doesn't dream of actually doing something, his dream of power is to make other people doing things. The black king is no suicide bomber really hoping for a reward in afterlife. His dream of power is here and now. The real big ones create causes, the ones with less skill, but still not to underestimate, serve the big ones in management positions. That puts them still high enough up the ladder to feel their dream of power because under them come others, they can manipulate, order, even send to death which is the ultimate power play of course.
So, you have black kings trying to recruit in such bubbles full of potential black paladins. The ones dreaming of sending out their assassins and bombers in a fantasy of ultimate powers and the ones dreaming of being a holy warrior, even a martyr to earn their own brand of immortality beyond death. So, what do you think will happen in this bubble? And if we know what happens there ... shall we really look the other way?

[jwocky]

And on a second side note: Anybody who has to rip lines out of context just to paint a wrongful picture has already devalued his cause ... nobody forgot about Anders Breivik or Timothy McVeigh. So yes, if you look for an Islamic fundamentalist, it is dark hair, if you look for example for Neonazis, you look for blondes, why not? It still means, if you look for a specific kind of unsub, you have to look in the groups where they are, not for reasons of mindless political correctness ignore those environments. We talked about Brussels and there is no militia connection. So why exactly was I supposed to talk in connection with the Brussels attack about other types of terrorists? Oh yes, I see ... race ... someone was obsessed with race!

[Lydiot]

jwocky:

Please just consider the following:

And on a second side note: Anybody who has to rip lines out of context just to paint a wrongful picture has already devalued his cause ...

you did even write, most bombers are white Christians.

Where what I actually wrote was:

Further more, what is your recommendation for Norway? To check pro-Christian white people with blue eyes? After all, statistically speaking the most violent bomb attacks and massacres are most likely to come from someone looking like this:

Did you really not understand the context?

[Lydiot]

@Lydiot: You brought the point of racial profiling up with your "I have no white skin and dark hair" and you did it in the usual way as if this would be only about race. So, you were the one obsessed with race.

Anyone can dye their hair blonde and wear contacts. What about that is difficult for you to admit? Either you're so gullible as to think would-be terrorists wouldn't avoid detection using those means, or it was really just a euphemism.

yes, if you look for an Islamic fundamentalist, it is dark hair, if you look for example for Neonazis, you look for blondes, why not? It still means, if you look for a specific kind of unsub, you have to look in the groups where they are, not for reasons of mindless political correctness ignore those environments.

"Hair" isn't a "group" or an "environment", that's what you appear to not comprehend. If you're going to go after Neonazis then what sets them apart from others isn't their hair color but their beliefs. So why bother with hair color in the first place? It's exactly the same with Islamist fundamentalists. It isn't frickin' hair that unites them and has meaning, it's their ideology.

So you find a blonde person. So what? What do you do next?

So you find a person blogging anti-black propaganda. Now maybe there's something to it - regardless of that person's likely hair color.

You understand the difference?

We talked about Brussels and there is no militia connection. So why exactly was I supposed to talk in connection with the Brussels attack about other types of terrorists? Oh yes, I see ... race ... someone was obsessed with race!

No, pay attention: Because if skin/hair/eye color had any importance whatsoever in the course of policing the nation then IN CONJUNCTION WITH OTHERS BEING PROFILED USING THE SAME PARAMETERS profiling would be useless.

Police objective: Stop terrorism. Period.
Profile #1: Dark hair, dark eyes
Profile #2: Light hair, light eyes

Now what? What do you do? Do you go after all people with either dark or light hair / dark or light eyes? You've covered the entire spectrum!

Ah, I know what you're itching to write: "Oh, you dummy, it's also about the other parameters, like, you know, being a radical Muslim." Exactly! And once you know that about the person you don't need to give a crap about what they look like. Because it isn't hair that separates the "good Muslim" from the "bad Muslim", it's the "bad" part. And since you have to figure out that anyway, that's all you need to figure out.

Capiche?

[IAHM-COL]

Police objective: Stop terrorism. Period.
Profile #1: Dark hair, dark eyes
Profile #2: Light hair, light eyes

Now what? What do you do? Do you go after all people with either dark or light hair / dark or light eyes? You've covered the entire spectrum!

No. You had not cover the entire spectrum.



**

[jwocky]

Okay Lydiot ... I do this for years. I have and can prove it, a hit quota that brings meup to par with the best profilers in the world. So, now the Lydiot comes and tell me all is wrong. So please, let me hear more of your infinite knowledge derived from single lines out of contacts and wild construction. I am sure, we need more anybody can dye his hair blond (yes, and which version do you think would be the one, his neighbors or friends or family knows? The one with dyed hair because he dyed his hair for the last 15 years .... or only after he decided to do something really bad in the range of security cams?). Oh yes, and I love the contact part ... that changes the whole face, nose, chin, face geometry for facial recognition, right? Would it be so hard to admit, that you not even have the faintest idea about this business?

[KL-666]

It is exactly as you say JWocky: from feeling to be a nothing you get prone to become an extremist. And that is the core of my concern with putting racial traits into a profile. Let me explain.

Say you want to find the terrorists as you describe. The profile will probably contain "Arab young men" + "religious" + a lot more. The goal is to filter the terrorist out of the profile group. One of the things you do is body search the guys on the street. Good! you think, then i catch the ones i want.

But another thing is happening at the same time. The Arab guys will notice that they are always the only ones searched, and feel very humiliated by that. Lowering their self esteem in relation to society, feeling more and more a nobody in society. Resulting in more people prone to extremism.

So by doing what you think reduces the problem, it actually makes it bigger. Therefore i think it is important to think very hard about adding racial traits in a profile, before you do it. Leaving them out may be more beneficial for your cause.

Kind regards, Vincent