BBC: A man shot dead by police hunting the bombers behind Thursday's London attacks was a Brazilian electrician unconnected to the incidents. The man, who died at Stockwell Tube on Friday, has been named by police as Jean Charles de Menezes, 27.
QUESTION: if the London police used RACIAL PROFILING, then would Mr. Menezes - a BRAZILIAN, not an ARAB or even a Muslim - be ALIVE? Think about it. All the London police used were behavioral markers: Menezes exited a building under surveilance; he wore outwear which was inapproprate for the weather, but that might conceal a bomb; he ran from police when confronted, jumpoed the turnstile and resisted arrest. If they had had a way to confirm he was Brazilian, and not Arab or Muslim, then maybe he'd be alive.
Then again, some witnesses have described Menezes as "Asian-looking" - which is "British" for someone who looks like he is Pakistani or Indian. Which MIGHT indicate that race played a strong part in Menezes MIS-IDENTIFICATION.
And remember: the 7/21 bombers included a Jamaican of African ancestry. So, what race or races should we profile? It's tough to say. Radical jihadists also include Chechens and Bosnians and Filipinos and Thais. So which race do you tag as a likely terrorist?
That's why I think the answer is that we need to use race as only one part of a much more extensive profile.
Chief among all markers is if the suspect is Muslim, and if he is Muslim - whether they have ever attended radical mosques or if they have ever made prolonged visits to countries which harbor or have harbored terrorist training-camps and/or madrassas which promulgate jihad. But this INTELLIGENCE would NOT be known when police re in hot pursuit of unknown suspects. It might be available when surreptitiously surveiling relatively stationary suspects (in a "safe house", for example) who are themselves not likely to imminently commit an act of terror.
BOTTOM-LINE: Because extensive and specific intel' would NEVER be available to any police in hot pursuit of an unidentified person suspected of having an explosive (or WMD) on them, the London police acted correctly. Which is why the death of Mr. Menezes is a tragedy, and not a crime.
I sympathize with the police and the victim's family. The choice the victim made in not stopping and vaulting over the turnstile only implicated him further. People need to conform to police requests/orders in such a situation as this. I hope this tragedy does not influence the police in future actions when real explosives are involved.
ReplyDeleteKyle is right, let's lill anyone that loos suspicious, police should have machine guns in case a whole bunch of commuters looks suspicious, let's kill them all, God is in our side and He will forgive us.
ReplyDeletethe leftie who left the last comment deliberately leaves out the fact that the dead brazialian man refused to cooperate with the police. had he cooperated, he would be alive. he ran and resisted arrest.
ReplyDeletethe busload of suspicious people the leftie brings up hypothetically bears ZERO resemblance to the actula case.
in additon; it is the TERRORISTS who indiscriminately kill innocents, NOT the police (or even OUR military).
the leftie's comments are typical, and it's why they are in effect a Fifth Column aiding the terrorists.
the left spews forth inaccurate propaganda which makes out COUNTERATTACK to terror more difficuklt.
they are NOT the "loyal oppositon" becasue they are not loyal; their cnstant nipping at ourt poilice and military helps the terrorists. more than helping US.
I have a feeling we have not heard the last of this story. Brazil is one of the South American (Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay) countries which is known to have active Al Qaeda cells.
ReplyDeleteThere is a real problem in that area; A problem so notable that it engendered a lengthy article in the New Yorker magazine a couple years back.
Let's invade South America and add another front to the war on terror. We need more enemies to kill.
ReplyDeleteBush strategy for the war on terror is giving excellent results, pretty soon we all will need to build our bomb shelters in our back yards, but, don't worry in 50 or 70 years we will be all dead anyway.
ReplyDeletepreceding anaonymous leftie commenter is an idiot: there were more casualties AFTER D-Day in WW2m than before - and MORE after the Battle of the Bulge than before. AND: KAMIKAZIS did NOT EVEN begin until 1945.
ReplyDeleteWe are counter-attacking outr enemy. Our enemy in this war IS FIGHTING BACK. So ther are OF COURSE more casualties than if we DID NOT FIGHT BACK.
it is OBVIOUS from the preceding leftie commenters comment that he/she wopuldm prefer if we did NOT fight back -- which means he/she advocaztes either SURRENDER or APPEASEMENT.
which do NOT work.
clinton inadequately counter-attacked from 1993 WTC attack (and after embassy bombings and Khobar, and USS COLE - to name just a FEW times we were ATTCKED by al Qaeda and CLINTON did bupkuss!).
his failure to retaliate hurt us.
it was during the CLINTOIN administration's time of appeasement that alk Qaeda trained 50,000 jihadis in Afghanistan.
clintion should have bombed all those trianing calps then.
we are now facing an enemy that was trianed durting that period of false security and appeasement.
so... niw we are FDINALKLY fighting back.
as we do so it is ONLY LOGICAL that the enemy will ESCALATE their attacks.
which is why we must WIPE HIM OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH.
reliapundit is right, Clinton did nothing on 9/11, while our Commander in Chief was in Texas milking horses and fishing with the Saudi royalty. That traitor Democrat should have told GW where to look before he left office.
ReplyDeletethe preceind idoit lefties uses sarcasm to deflect the truth: 1993 WTC attack; Somalia; Khobar; embassy attacks; USS Cole - NONE adequately retaliated against by clinton.
ReplyDeletei challenge this leftie troll to prove that clinton did retalioate effectively.
IN FACT: binalden himself cited the USA's WEAK response as proof he could defeat the GREAT SATAN; Clinton made us into "THE WEAK HORSE" - AFTER 9/11 (not before) Bush changed that.
these are the facts. i know that they make lefties uncomfortable.
i am a registered dem who voted for clinton twice and gore in 2000.
but i know the truth - and accept it.
bush has been a great wartime president.
the dems would be better off if they supported him - and the GWOT - rrather than brown-nosed their wacky left-wing base.
of which the preceding commenter is a prime example.
reliapundit is lame, he post his opinions and then attacks anyone that disagrees with him, lame, lame, if you want to write your diary and don't allow anyone to have an opinion on it, dont' put it on the internet you faggot.
ReplyDelete