[ExI] Terrorist? Who can tell?

[Lee Corbin]

Damien writes

>> If you go into the large areas of London where mostly non-white people
>> live, you will see about about 3 million people that look like Al
>> Qaeda members to the profiling eye. This information is totally
>> useless.
> 
> This is so self-evident I can't imagine what Lee is on about. Unless--

Oh?  It seemed to me to take tongs and pliers to extract this
"self-evident" concession on some people's parts. I had to 
repeat no less than three times the precise question. And
my question itself was a logical inference based on the (to me)
overly broad claims being presented. But why did I have to
repeat it so often, and then *finally* receive a response "oh,
this is so self-evident that it needs not be asked?

(I fear that in each time, people were reluctant to concede the
conclusion for fear of being politically incorrect---thus lending
a hand, they supposed---to racism and abrupt stereotyping).
My very first interlocutor in this thread, for example, continues
his notable silence on my precisely stated question.)

>>[Lee:]
>>
>> > I understand. We should use profiling only when it works, but
>> > when it *does* work, it *should* be used, I think you'll agree.
> 
> Lee, do you perhaps mean "I'm sick of standing in line and taking my 
> damned shoes off when it's perfectly apparent to anyone who knows 
> that the only terrorists around my parts are Muslims from [swarthy 
> parts of the globe], so they should use racial profiling to let me 
> and people like me get on with our business without being molested." 
> This wouldn't help catch terrorists, but will save a lot of grief for 
> many humans.
> 
> Or perhaps Lee means something entirely different.

It so happens that Lee *does* means something entirely different.
If you re-read carefully what I said, it mentions none of the conclusions
you speculate about. Question for you, Damien (or any other
secular-progressive who's brave enough to answer):

Yes, we should we employ profiling only when it works, but when it
*does* work, indeed should it actually be used?

As for your interesting speculation having little to do with that
particular question, yes,  I'm  annoyed that I have to waiting line
and take off my shoes when it's perfectly apparent that I'm not
in the most likely category (either young, or (in American airports)
evidently of non-traditional American heritage). But enough about
me. That's not my *real* beef. 

> Until the first little old white-haired white woman is waved through, 
> and blows the hell out of an aircraft, or releases a lethal 
> bacterial/viral attack in a crowded airport. Why did she do it?

What are the chances of that?  Or are you suddenly backing
the "zero-tolerance" mentality that insists that risks be reduced
to absolute zero, or as close to zero as we can fiscally afford
without completely bankrupting future generations?

Here is what George Bush should have said the day after 9-11:
"By Executive Order I command that *all* airline travel proceed
exactly as scheduled and with no interruption in consequence of
this attack. Henceforth, all passengers are ordered to physically
overcome anyone attempting to hijack an aircraft. The completely
unprepared passengers of Flight 93, who learned that they were
going to die anyway if they did nothing, exemplified heroic behavior,
and so must all of you, should this ever happen again. Knowing your
resolve, we may be sure that hijackers will fear your canes, your
heavy books, and your weighted handbags and will realize that
they never will have a chance against determined Americans."

http://wcco.com/911/minnesota.hero.september.2.370155.html

Unfortunately, we no longer live in an heroic age, and the pages
of the New York Times and all its slavish imitators and so very,
very many people on this list itself would have wasted no time
in condemning the president for being such an old-fashioned romantic
fool who did not instantly authorize vast new government programs
to "deal with" the event, or who did not simply confess that the
attack was a direct and understandable result of his own misguided
policies.

> Maybe she was furious that McCain got elected after all. Maybe she has 
> terminal cancer and was paid half a mil by swarthy terrorists, 
> providing college scholarships for her grandkids. Maybe she thought 
> the bottle held cough syrup for the unpleasant rasping she'd 
> developed lately, prescribed by that swarthy doctor who runs the clinic.

Maybe, maybe, maybe. Hah! It's never even come close to happening
so far as we know. But could it actually happen? Could any old lady
or group of old ladies really prevail over a plane load of typical
passengers fighting for their lives?

Do you or do you not accept that the physically feeble should be
"profiled out" of the silly inspections? And as for bombs, a glance
at their shoes should suffice---but not, I'll grant, at the level of 
zero risk.

Lee