The question I would have for you is how do you know they are not looking for this behavior in every race? I don't know that they i.e. security is not looking, but I doubt Joe Sixpack and his wife on a plane would think a white woman would be a terrorist... If white folks were saying the same thing and making the same requests, I would be suspicious. You might be, but many might just think they had been listening to Rush Limbaugh, etc. talking about Saddam, etc. Or they might have thought it was a joke, etc. Depends on what they said, right? Tone of voice, facial expressions, context, etc. However, this will not be tested until some white people (or any other race) actually do these things. I predict the shit will really hit the fan in this country when we do see some copycat, or recruited whites involved in this type of thing. The only way for you or I to know if the practice is not being excercised on other races is to either witness it while on a plane, it is reported by the news that another race was acting in this way and nothing was done, or another race actually carries out a terrorist action. We can wait for a disaster, true. Or we can be just as vigilant with all races, age and gender when it come to behavior that is suspicious...
How do you propose we act more vigilant with other groups in this case? Until other groups are actually acting suspiciously, what do we do? Remember that it was another muslim passenger that actually translated what was being said by the imams in the first place. This muslim was also suspicious of these passengers, otherwise he would not have felt the need to inform anyone. He wasn't scrutinized in the same way because he wasn't acting suspiciously. In fact, I think the passengers are actually glad that this muslim was on the plane, because he did know what was being said. There are people out there that of course are racists, but most out there that would say common sense tells us that the probability of a plane being hijacked by a muslim is greater than a plane being hijacked by a little old lady. They aren't saying it to be racist. The numbers tell us that this is the case.
If the focus stays on behavior of everyone, racism is no longer a factor. It really doesn't matter that the probability is greater with a Muslim, as that type of thinking produces lax security in general, thinking that behavior that is a bit odd should be ignored because they don't fit the "profile." The profile needs to be behavior, not race, gender, ethnicity, etc.
Ok, let's say you ran an insurance company. Would you use the above reasoning to determine the price-structure of your car insurance policies?
That is exactly what insurance companies do, they measure behavior of all drivers while driving as measured by accidents and tickets, and apply the averages to everyone to put the odds in their favor. Minor adjustments are then made for driving record (driving behavior). We all end up paying more because of the behavior of hit & run drivers, drunk drivers, and those who get in accidents due to alcohol and drug abuse while driving, uninsured motorists, etc....though discounts are given to non drinkers and non smokers in some situations by some carriers. Good driver (behavior) discounts are often offered. To my knowledge, there are not different rates for certain races or ethnicity or religious beliefs. There may be such policies, I can't say with certainty, but I doubt they would get away with racial profiling. Yes, they do profile on the base of age, i.e. rates are higher for younger people based on statistical data of accidents of teenagers and young men and women, but I don't think they differentiate between black, white, yellow, red, brown, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Agnostic, Democrat, Republican, etc. young drivers...
Would you mind PMing me with the reason you suddenly decided to begin acting respectful towards me, about two months ago? I promise to keep it confidential. I admit, I'm completely stumped, and not at all sure how to react to it. If you want me to reciprocate in kind, you're going to have to let me know what the hell is going on. Thanx. I brought up the insurance company example, not because race/ethnicity is a factor, but because you won't find a single insurer that <i>doesn't</i> factor in <b>gender</b> (and marital status) when setting policy prices. Young men are statistically a higher collision risk than women of the same age, and are therefore forced to accept higher premium prices. Nobody protests against this, because it's just plain logical. Muslim men are obviously a higher terrorism risk on commercial flights, and pretending otherwise while shaking down granny for her wrinkle cream and tweezers is just plain ridiculous.
You're right. Insurance companies do not decide rates based on race directly. Age and where you live have a major effect on policy premiums. If you live in compton, you are paying a higher premium for the same type of coverage on the same type of car that somebody in Laguna Beach is going to pay. The younger you are, the more you pay too. Where you live effects rates because you are more likely to have your car broken into in Compton than you are in Laguna Beach. If we decide to measure behavior, then the behavior of muslim men ages 18 to 30 are the highest risk for possible highjackings on planes. Based on statistical data. The difference between car insurance and plane hijackings is that people are not out trying to get into accidents when they drive. Or if they are, like in the case of swoop and squat, the people setting it up are looking for opportunity regardless of the race of the driver.
Yes, they do factor in age as it relates to behavior, and marital status as it relates to behavior, but not race, nor ethnicity, nor religious affiliation. My point is not the young Muslim men who are not US citizens are not a higher risk (if we measure you incidents by young Muslim men who are non American and coming from the countries where young Muslim men have engaged in terrorism, etc.), but that everyone is a potential risk (yes, even Grandma...we never know) and if we are trying to err on the side of caution by observing behavior, I would like the security personnel applying standards with consistency regardless of age, race, ethnicity, etc. If we see granny behaving suspiciously, then she should be subject to exactly the same scrutiny as a young Muslim.
I addressed the analogy as it was presented with auto insurance carriers, who do not evaluate race, ethnicity, or religion....or even gang affiliation for those living in Compton. There simply is no reason for security to not be alert when evaluating any individual, no matter if they are Muslim or a Catholic Mother Superior. You may say it is a waste of time to look at anyone but Muslims...until it happens...then you will do what? If security is alert to any suspicious behavior, I don't understand your objections...I am supporting the idea of profiling behavior at the airport and on the plane...just not on the basis of age, race, ethnicity, marital status, nor religion... What, you don't want to be under the microscope simply because of your age, ethnicity, religion, sex, or the color of your skin? Fancy that...
I did not say that we should not look at all suspicious behavior. What I originally asked is how we can be more vigilant towards other groups in this case? If they act suspicious, then it should be reported. How do you show that they are making a concerted effort to manage all suspicious behavior if other groups so far have not displayed any suspicious behavior?