3 ms·

I used Wikipedia as source and in that article Jawa Report was mentioned as original source. I don't follow that blog, I read the Wikipedia article on what happ

I used Wikipedia as source and in that article Jawa Report was mentioned as original source. I don't follow that blog, I read the Wikipedia article on what happened. I guess in your Marxist mindset, everything is policy statement even when you cite what happened. It was you talked about Jihad Jane and I look it up. Now you didn't like the answer so now you start calling me a bigot because the Jawa reports are by your accounts bigots. Splendid logic. Is that all you have? That empty barrel calling everyone else bigots and racists. Truly intellectual and classy. I guess now you done that we already have fewer terrorist, all by your help. "That racist was stopped, we can stop bombing now." As little you know about logic same goes for your try to understanding the intelligence business. If all terrorist starting to act like old ladies playing solitaire, we would know because you are already profiling those groups who would do that. Come on dude! Think. Use that part thats called brain and start thinking outside the copy paste answers from Huffpo or wherever you get them. But if we put your tiny intellectual mindset aside, we can conclude that Jihad Jane was captured by profiling. However you didn't really like that it was done by a bunch of redneck racist. You would preferred if Lars Vilks was actually murder by her. I mean blogging racism is much worse, right?

Amadou 13y ago
I used Wikipedia as source and in that article Jawa Report was mentioned as original source. I don't follow that blog, Your ignorance of your sources does not change anything. The Jawa Report is still wrong 99.99% of the time. Citing them does not prove that profiling works, it proves profiling does not work because the false positive rate is through the roof. If all terrorist starting to act like old ladies playing solitaire, we would know because you are already profiling those groups who would do that. You have this unfounded belief that profiling is effective, as if the people trying to evade profiling are dumber than the people doing the profiling - despite one being a bureaucracy and the other being a bunch of loosely-affiliated individuals able complete freedom to change tactics on a dime. Everything you say follows from that. Telling me to "think" doesn't make it any more true, all it does is prove you don't have any facts to support your conclusions. Everything you've cited has been proof to the contrary of your own claims. You would preferred if Lars Vilks was actually murder by her. Yes, that's exactly what I wanted. Spelling out how you are wrong, how everything you cite has racist connotations means I am evil. I'm going to take that accusation as proof of unwilling concession on your part and end the discussion here.

Amadou 13y ago

I used Wikipedia as source and in that article Jawa Report was mentioned as original source. I don't follow that blog, Your ignorance of your sources does not change anything. The Jawa Report is still wrong 99.99% of the time. Citing them does not prove that profiling works, it proves profiling does not work because the false positive rate is through the roof. If all terrorist starting to act like old ladies playing solitaire, we would know because you are already profiling those groups who would do that. You have this unfounded belief that profiling is effective, as if the people trying to evade profiling are dumber than the people doing the profiling - despite one being a bureaucracy and the other being a bunch of loosely-affiliated individuals able complete freedom to change tactics on a dime. Everything you say follows from that. Telling me to "think" doesn't make it any more true, all it does is prove you don't have any facts to support your conclusions. Everything you've cited has been proof to the contrary of your own claims. You would preferred if Lars Vilks was actually murder by her. Yes, that's exactly what I wanted. Spelling out how you are wrong, how everything you cite has racist connotations means I am evil. I'm going to take that accusation as proof of unwilling concession on your part and end the discussion here.