3 ms·

Sure, but there's "profiling" and there's "racial profiling." One of them is expected, the other starts riots. Also, FWIW, "criminal profilers" were recently f

• siculars 16y ago
  > Sure, but there's "profiling" and there's "racial profiling." One of them is expected, the other starts riots. In some places printing pictures of historical figures causes riots. In other places beheadings go unnoticed. So, what's your point? What makes this racial profiling? The fact that there is a where or group by clause in the query which uses religion as an argument for matches? I would have a problem if that were the only criteria, clearly it is not because if it were all people of that religion would be under surveillance. I would argue that those that are tasked with our security should most definitely keep an eye on and know what is going on with Muslims both home and abroad. This is not to say that all Muslims are terrorists or that all terrorists are Muslims. To discount the fact that we are currently persecuting a war against Islamic extremists would be foolish. It would be the height of politically-correct-group-think to not watch this group and single out individuals for investigation specifically when there are multiple flags. By "watch this group" I specifically mean using it as a flag in their decision matrix when combing through their vast databases. We can argue as to which flags or combination of flags warrant further action but that does not negate the fact that it should be done.