SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: aladin who wrote (58779)11/25/2002 2:57:26 PM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 281500
 
Good comment, IMO, on the profiling question, and the response to it. Edited from a NRO column.

>>>>If efficiency in fighting crime comes at the cost of hurt feelings among some "community" or other, I am OK with that. I think, as a matter of fact, the "community" should be OK with it, too. Plenty of blacks are victims of black crime (in the case of homicide, for example, which black Americans commit at around nine times the nonblack rate, perp, and victim are of the same race around 90 percent of the time); Muslims were among the 9/11 victims (more than 50, according to this website). If the cost of fighting those things is, that young black professionals in smart cars get pulled over and asked to show their licenses more than old Asian women in 1993 Camaros, or that mosques come under discreet FBI surveillance now and then, I think law-abiding blacks and Muslims should bear those mild indignities philosophically.

If you want to cherish a group identity, you ought to be ready to shoulder the cross that comes with it. Black Americans commit crimes at rates sensationally higher than nonblacks; terrorism is very nearly a monopoly of extremist Muslims. Most blacks are not criminals, of course, and most Muslims are not terrorists; but nonblacks are entitled, on perfectly rational grounds, to concentrate their suspicions on blacks, and non-Muslims on Muslims, in the relevant areas of their lives, as a matter of simple prudence. If you are black, or Muslim, your best response is to join with the rest of us to stamp out crime and terrorism. The actual approach of too many black and Muslim activists, however, is to deny the issues exist. Crime? Enron! WorldCom! Terrorism? Tim McVeigh! Tim McVeigh! As an approach to the horrible, civilization-corroding issues of crime and terrorism, these responses strike most of us as inadequate. To put it mildly.<<<http://www.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire112502.asp



To: aladin who wrote (58779)11/25/2002 3:09:18 PM
From: Nadine Carroll  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
This is a little over the top as a generalization. I will give you that there are certain fanatical elements that like the publicity associated and might put children in harms way as a result, but that is different from saying this about all Palestinians.

I stand by this statement as an assertion of the Palestinian leadership's program, which is to encourage little boys to deliberately seek death for the cause. In the media, the schools, the street, the message is the same. They have run ads on TV encouraging boys to become martyrs, where they show Heaven as a green place with kites flying. That is why there are eight year olds in the shabab, attacking Israeli soldiers and tanks - because they know the IDF has a standing order not to shoot children, the little ones also act as shields.

Why can't they use tear gas? While ineffective on prepared protestors or fanatical zealots - it would certainly disperse kids and teenagers

When the Israelis are prepared for riots, they do use tear gas. But when smaller numbers are caught by a mob, they a) don't have tear gas, b) the stone-throwers are backed by guns or grenades so that the Israeli soldiers must shoot or die. Read the article again, it says that there were hundreds in the mob, against one jeep. The Palestinians won the engagement as soon they managed to set it up. Either they would have dead Israelis or dead kids, a win either way.