12-08-2008, 04:39 AM
Gutenberg wrote:
"So not using what we know--that the probability that a Middle-Eastern male between 18 and 23 is going to be a terrorist--not using that, is folly. And I think we should use it. But it's not racial profiling, it's terrorist profiling.”
Pardon me? You believe this guy? Who says that any Middle Eastern male between the ages of 18 and 23 is likely to be a terrorist? And you don't understand why most of the people on this forum don't want to take you seriously. Un-be-freaking-lievable.
"The Guy" is the Former New York City Police Commissioner Howard Safir.. Is there some reason I shouldn't believe him? If you had read my link, you would have known who said it.
And if you are going to quote my quote, at least quote it in context.
Here, let me make it easy for you. I'll bold type the parts of the quote you found convenient to leave out.
"We know that the 19 (9-11) hijackers were Middle-Eastern men between 18 and 23,” Safir remarked. “We know that the people who hit the Cole were the same profile. We know that the people who hit the embassies in Africa were the same profile. So not using what we know--that the probability that a Middle-Eastern male between 18 and 23 is going to be a terrorist--not using that, is folly. And I think we should use it. But it's not racial profiling, it's terrorist profiling.”
From which I conclude that if there were a terrorist attack on NYC, it will probably be done by a Middle Eastern male between the ages of 18 and 23 and that to not use this information in profiling probable terroists would be folly.
Based on the full context, that's a wrong conclusion? Why is it "Un-be-freaking-lievable"?
Gutenberg.. you used to make some sense sometimes, but in your desire to vilify my every post, you're going off the deep end. Take a deep breath. Don't let "silly old Swampy" rattle you so much.