A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
http://www.emergency-management.net/...ror_hijack.htm

this is not a complete list.

It's not a complete list. It also doesn't seem to specify the religion of the hijackers.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I'm saying there are non-muslims getting on planes in those same airports. you're saying they would only be on US bound flights?

No, I'm saying the information we've collected here doesn't show that muslims exclusively hijack planes and, to the extent the data suggest a disproportionate use of hijacking by muslims, that could as easily result from opportunity as from propensity. If you think loads of jews are getting on flights out of Afghanistan and Pakistan, then I would like some support.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Everyone thinks it isn't sufficient.

After reading these exchange, I wouldn't be so sure about that.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Gattigap
After reading these exchange, I wouldn't be so sure about that.

Slave says there's no reason to search an 89-year-old Muslim of American citizenship in a wheelchair. No one disagreed with him.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Slave says there's no reason to search an 89-year-old Muslim of American citizenship in a wheelchair. No one disagreed with him.

So searching muslims is over inclusive. Is it underinclusive?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I agree with S_A_M that while I thought Pelosi was saying that people shouldn't be stopped solely on the basis of their religion, she may have meant that it shouldn't be considered at all. If she meant the latter, I disagree. If the former, I take it no one has a problem with it.

In a practical world how can you stop somone solely based on their religion? Can you see into mens souls? In addition, when you see someone you can't help but see a whole bunch of criteria that could be used in profiling. She was talking about religion being used as a criteria not as the sole reason. Profiling uses a whole set of criteria. People that have a problem with profiling don't like it when profiling includes some criteria they don't like.

She meant that Religion should not be used as part of the criteria for profiling. She is an idiot and she should shut the hell up.

And as far as hijacking, the list of planes that flew in the developed world, it seemed to me, the overwhelming majority were Muslim. In addition, the non-Muslims that hijack the planes do it for reasons other than intentionally killing people. The recent hijacking or attempted hijacking of American airliners have been done by Muslims and they have had the intention of killing everyone on board. 9-11, the shoebomber, the London Hijackers (who targeted american planes). I would much preferred to be on a plane hijacked by a non-Muslim.

Who could argue that in all probablity the next American plane to be hijacked will be by Muslims that will try and kill everyone on board and as many other Americans they can take with them. Who doubts that this is what Al Queda wants to do?

Normally this PC talk is annoying, but in this case it could end up causing the deaths of more Americans.

They can't thoroughly check everyone getting on a plane. From my perspective the average employee at McDonalds has a better sense on who to focus on than the future speaker of the house (and Less).

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
So searching muslims is over inclusive. Is it underinclusive?

Yes.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky
Who could argue that in all probablity the next American plane to be hijacked will be by Muslims that will try and kill everyone on board and as many other Americans they can take with them. Who doubts that this is what Al Queda wants to do?

Right now, sure. But 20 years ago we were worried about groups like the IRA, too. Who's to say another one ofehost won't come along?

[Replaced_Texan]

I don't know much about tasers, except they're supposed to be some sort of non-lethal force. I know that there's some evidence that they can kill people, and I know that they hurt like a motherfucker.

Should they be used to encourage compliance with a police order?

UCPD officers shot a student several times with a Taser inside the Powell Library CLICC computer lab late Tuesday night before taking him into custody.

No university police officers were available to comment further about the incident as of 3 a.m. Wednesday, and no Community Service Officers who were on duty at the time could be reached.

At around 11:30 p.m., CSOs asked a male student using a computer in the back of the room to leave when he was unable to produce a BruinCard during a random check. The student did not exit the building immediately.

The CSOs left, returning minutes later, and police officers arrived to escort the student out. By this time the student had begun to walk toward the door with his backpack when an officer approached him and grabbed his arm, at which point the student told the officer to let him go. A second officer then approached the student as well.

The student began to yell "get off me," repeating himself several times.

It was at this point that the officers shot the student with a Taser for the first time, causing him to fall to the floor and cry out in pain. The student also told the officers he had a medical condition.

UCPD officers confirmed that the man involved in the incident was a student, but did not give a name or any additional information about his identity.

Video shot from a student's camera phone captured the student yelling, "Here's your Patriot Act, here's your fucking abuse of power," while he struggled with the officers.

As the student was screaming, UCPD officers repeatedly told him to stand up and said "stop fighting us." The student did not stand up as the officers requested and they shot him with the Taser at least once more.

The video is here.

I tend to think that you generally do what the police ask you to do and sue them later, but then I'm not an obnoxious college student (anymore) and I grew up in Texas, where you're taught to respect the hell out of anyone in uniform*. But I also tend to think that people who join smaller police forces (like those dedicated to Universities) didn't somehow make the cut for "real" police and aren't really good about policework. They are, to me, a step up from rent-a-cops.

It seems to me, watching the video, that the cops here didn't know what to do with this kid and so they resorted to their tasers. It seems to me that there is no seeming difference between the cop beating the shit out of the guy with his baton and beating the shit out of the guy with electricity. The guy did seem to be resisting them, but as far as I could tell, they weren't arresting him, just escorting him off the property.

BTW, the student's name is Mostafa Tabatabainejad.


*I remember once encountering a cop out of state with a friend, and my friend was so irritated at me for my frequent use of the word "sir" in addressing the cop. Can't help it. It's habit. And I'm not the type that cops go out of their way to hassle.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

No one here thinks it's a bad idea to consider someone's religion in trying to find hijackers. Everyone thinks it isn't sufficient.

Quick non-substantive aside. you can't keep calling me dense and stupid, then use "everyone." those 2 actions are contradictory.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Slave says there's no reason to search an 89-year-old Muslim of American citizenship in a wheelchair. No one disagreed with him.

Wasn't a couple involved in the attempted London hijacking attempting to put their baby on board with a bomb? Couldn't someone be wiring Granny to blow up?

If the old lady is a black muslim from Chicago, the chances of her blowing up the plane are almost nil. But if she is a naturalized muslim from Pakistan or Jordan, that is a different story.

But of course my analysis has used all sorts of non PC criteria. Religion, ethnicity and national origin.

[Southern Patriot]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Yawn.

How can it be a friggin' non-issue when the Speaker-elect of the House suggests idiotic things like making profiling illegal - when even the biggest lefty among you will admit that being Islamic is the most likely indicator of someone being a terrorist?

I agree. Search all the Macacas.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
But I also tend to think that people who join smaller police forces (like those dedicated to Universities) didn't somehow make the cut for "real" police and aren't really good about policework. They are, to me, a step up from rent-a-cops.

AT my college, the police force was basically a semi-autonomous unit of the local town's police. I think the main difference is that their weapons belts had an extra pocket for breathalyzers.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
In a practical world how can you stop somone solely based on their religion? Can you see into mens souls? In addition, when you see someone you can't help but see a whole bunch of criteria that could be used in profiling. She was talking about religion being used as a criteria not as the sole reason. Profiling uses a whole set of criteria. People that have a problem with profiling don't like it when profiling includes some criteria they don't like.

She meant that Religion should not be used as part of the criteria for profiling. She is an idiot and she should shut the hell up.

And as far as hijacking, the list of planes that flew in the developed world, it seemed to me, the overwhelming majority were Muslim. In addition, the non-Muslims that hijack the planes do it for reasons other than intentionally killing people. The recent hijacking or attempted hijacking of American airliners have been done by Muslims and they have had the intention of killing everyone on board. 9-11, the shoebomber, the London Hijackers (who targeted american planes). I would much preferred to be on a plane hijacked by a non-Muslim.

Who could argue that in all probablity the next American plane to be hijacked will be by Muslims that will try and kill everyone on board and as many other Americans they can take with them. Who doubts that this is what Al Queda wants to do?

Normally this PC talk is annoying, but in this case it could end up causing the deaths of more Americans.

They can't thoroughly check everyone getting on a plane. From my perspective the average employee at McDonalds has a better sense on who to focus on than the future speaker of the house (and Less).

Our relations with Russia notwithstanding, I agree that it's hard to see into men's souls, and for similar reasons discount your claim to read Nancy Pelosi's mind. In any event, I'm still not sure who you're arguing with, because no one on this board thinks that religion -- or national origin, etc. -- should be ignored in profiling. Speaking personally, I would prefer smarter airport security personnel to ask questions and generally dig for more information rather than doing perfunctory searches of large numbers of people (e.g., all Muslims).

[Southern Patriot]

Originally posted by Spanky
Wasn't a couple involved in the attempted London hijacking attempting to put their baby on board with a bomb? Couldn't someone be wiring Granny to blow up?

If the old lady is a black muslim from Chicago, the chances of her blowing up the plane are almost nil. But if she is a naturalized muslim from Pakistan or Jordan, that is a different story.

But of course my analysis has used all sorts of non PC criteria. Religion, ethnicity and national origin.

Under the true constitution, before those damn yankees corrupted it after the War of Northern Agression, there was none of this mumbo jumbo. It is self-evident that these people should be searched. And if they should ever become citizens, they should count as 3/5 of a person and someone else should cast their votes.