USA Muslim ostracism starting. How will this turn out?

The banning is being called "Trumped".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/12065608/David-Cameron-urged-to-intervene-as-US-bans-Muslim-family.html


Quote:

US bans Muslim family from Disneyland holiday - MP calls for David Cameron to intervene A family of 11, from Walthamstow in north east London, had planned a holiday to Disneyland in California but were barred from entering             A Labour MP has called on the Prime Minister to challenge the US after officials refused to allow a Muslim family permission to board a flight to the country from Gatwick. Stella Creasy has written to David Cameron urging him to press American authorities on what she says is a growing problem of British Muslims being barred from the US without explanation. The family of 11 Walthamstow had planned a holiday to Disneyland in California Photo: Alamy The family of 11, from Ms Creasy's Walthamstow constituency in north east London, had planned a holiday to Disneyland in California, saving thousands of pounds for the trip. Stella Creasy Photo: Susannah Ireland/Eyevine But as they went to board the Norwegian Airlines flight to Los Angeles from the Sussex airport on December 15 they were approached by officials from the US Department of Homeland Security, who told them their authorisation to travel had been cancelled. The father, Mohammad Tariq Mahmood, said no reason was given as to why they could not board the flight, even though the family were allowed to under the Visa Waiver programme, which authorises travel to the US for up to 90 days without a visa. Mohammad Tariq Mahmood was stopped at the gate of Gatwick airport Photo: SWNS Mr Mahmood, who was travelling with his brother and nine of their children, told the Guardian he believed the reason was "because of the attacks on America - they think every Muslim poses a threat". David Cameron Photo: AFP Ms Creasy said she is concerned about increasing numbers of British Muslims being stopped from entering the US with no apparent reason. Writing in the newspaper, she said she had "hit a brick wall" with getting an explanation from American authorities and so has asked Mr Cameron to intervene. Ms Creasy said: "The vacuum created by a refusal to provide any context for these decisions is fuelling resentment and debate. "Online and offline discussions reverberate with the growing fear that UK Muslims are being 'trumped' - that widespread condemnation of Donald Trump's call for no Muslim to be allowed into America contrasts with what is going on in practice." "Now we should do more than shrug our shoulders at secretive American security policies that leave our constituents in such limbo" Stella Creasy MP She added: "Just a week ago, parliamentarians were united in agreement that Trump's views were abhorrent. Now we should do more than shrug our shoulders at secretive American security policies that leave our constituents in such limbo. "If the embassy won't answer to the family's MP, it should answer to their prime minister and he to us about what he is doing to ensure that no British citizen is being discriminated against for their faith on our shores." Downing Street said Mr Cameron would respond to the issues raised by Ms Creasy.

They've gone stark raving mad.

Muslim Family Day at Disneyland is a big deal in the Islamic world. Who knew?

A family of 11? That in itself is a red flag. Unless they are Mormons.

mothra wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 12:21am:

They've gone stark raving mad.

They may even make you their Queen  :)

Was some member of the family on a “no-fly” list? We don't know. Don't you think they must have had a reason?

AiA wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 12:23am:

A family of 11? That in itself is a red flag. Unless they are Mormons.

The article said two brothers and their children, so i expect there was two families worth of kids.

AiA wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 12:24am:

Was some member of the family on a “no-fly” list? We don't know. Don't you think they must have had a reason?

If they were. they would not have qualified for the Visa Waiver program.

mothra wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 12:30am:

AiA wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 12:24am: Was some member of the family on a “no-fly” list? We don't know. Don't you think they must have had a reason? If they were. they would not have qualified for the Visa Waiver program.

We don't know that. Neither the US or British governments have said a word. All I have read is speculation, most of it absurd, as if Donald Trump is suddenly directing US Homeland Security ...

The US do not have a right to reject VISA applications and controlling who they want to come in?

Maqqa wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 12:35am:

The US do not have a right to reject VISA applications and controlling who they want to come in?

Every country does have the right to control the flow of visitors. Air travel is getting more difficult for all of us. I used to enjoy flying but not anymore - the security lines and checkpoints, having to take off my shoes, being asked about this and that in my backpack ... that is the price we will simply have to pay for a long, long time.

AiA wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 1:22am:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 12:35am: The US do not have a right to reject VISA applications and controlling who they want to come in? Every country does have the right to control the flow of visitors. Air travel is getting more difficult for all of us. I used to enjoy flying but not anymore - the security lines and checkpoints, having to take off my shoes, being asked about this and that in my backpack ... that is the price we will simply have to pay for a long, long time.

yes, muslims caused all that.

I see a  good reason to ban him and all his family.

...........Mohammad Tariq Mahmood............

There's usually a little more to these situations behind the scenes that no one will talk about. I'm not saying that the government always gets it right, just look at the idiocy of the no fly list but there could have been something behind the refusal. It's hard because there is no appeal process.

Maybe the US immigration people ha e decided not to wait for the election and implement The Donald's policy now.
Wouldn't that be good.

PS what are the closet burqa wearers doing up this early?

AiA wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 1:22am:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 12:35am: The US do not have a right to reject VISA applications and controlling who they want to come in? Every country does have the right to control the flow of visitors. Air travel is getting more difficult for all of us.

Oh,      ....really ?

Why is that ?


THE RELIGION OF PEACE
http://thereligionofpeace.com/

Maybe the US (Obummer) have finally realised that if they want to stop terrorist attacks on their soil, they need to ensure that all entrants are squeaky-clean and have no connections whatsoever with Jihadists, and quite rightly so.

These people obviously do not comply with US criteria.

Finally Obummer is taking notice of his security advisors.

bogarde73 wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 6:40am:

Maybe the US immigration people ha e decided not to wait for the election and implement The Donald's policy now. Wouldn't that be good. PS what are the closet burqa wearers doing up this early?

It's never going to happen. This isn't Australia. Americans aren't like that.

Fuzzball wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 7:53am:

Maybe the US (Obummer) have finally realised that if they want to stop terrorist attacks on their soil, they need to ensure that all entrants are squeaky-clean and have no connections whatsoever with Jihadists, and quite rightly so. These people obviously do not comply with US criteria. Finally Obummer is taking notice of his security advisors.

Frankly, we have no idea why they were stopped. They may have suspected a breach in Visa conditions, could be anything.

Kytro wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 8:37am:

Fuzzball wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 7:53am: Maybe the US (Obummer) have finally realised that if they want to stop terrorist attacks on their soil, they need to ensure that all entrants are squeaky-clean and have no connections whatsoever with Jihadists, and quite rightly so. These people obviously do not comply with US criteria. Finally Obummer is taking notice of his security advisors. Frankly, we have no idea why they were stopped. They may have suspected a breach in Visa conditions, could be anything.

They were stopped because they were suspicious.



Lord Herbert wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 1:35pm:

Trump or no Trump - it's been happening on the quiet for some time now. link

Not only but also:

Muslims with European passports are scrutinised by the US, Canada, Australia.
"Two days after the attacks in Paris, authorities at Melbourne airport refused entry to a French Arab man who tried to enter the country after flying from Abu Dhabi carrying extremist material and chemical mace."
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/terror/terror-checks-for-europeans-travelling-to-australia/news-story/584bdb49169d6f3227ff5b15a1cb6a1a

Religious profiling is a must.

Soren wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 3:54pm:

Not only but also: Muslims with European passports are scrutinised by the US, Canada, Australia. "Two days after the attacks in Paris, authorities at Melbourne airport refused entry to a French Arab man who tried to enter the country after flying from Abu Dhabi carrying extremist material and chemical mace." http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/terror/terror-checks-for-europeans-travelling-to-australia/news-story/584bdb49169d6f3227ff5b15a1cb6a1a Religious profiling is a must.

That is, until the laziness of religious profiling results in a blond hair, blue eyed Scandinavian convert to Islam and a terrorist arrives in Australia and is able to get through our security and then launches an attack... All the while you were looking for what you believed to be a Muslim..

Lafayette wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 5:44pm:

Soren wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 3:54pm: Not only but also: Muslims with European passports are scrutinised by the US, Canada, Australia. "Two days after the attacks in Paris, authorities at Melbourne airport refused entry to a French Arab man who tried to enter the country after flying from Abu Dhabi carrying extremist material and chemical mace." http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/terror/terror-checks-for-europeans-travelling-to-australia/news-story/584bdb49169d6f3227ff5b15a1cb6a1a Religious profiling is a must. That is, until the laziness of religious profiling results in a blond hair, blue eyed Scandinavian convert to Islam and a terrorist arrives in Australia and is able to get through our security and then launches an attack... All the while you were looking for what you believed to be a Muslim..

And that's why I said RELIGIOUS profiling, not racial profiling, Mr Expert-my-arse.
Mohammed, peace be on him, what??

mothra wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 12:21am:

They've gone stark raving mad.

No 'they' haven't.

It has been reported, that some members of this moslem family, have stated on social media, that they support ISIS.



Clearly the members of this family are ALL latent, wanna-be homicidal maniacs.

i.e.
They are all, self-declared moslems.

How does the US gov know that these moslems won't try to commit an ISLAMIC atrocity, while they are in the US, 'on holiday' ?



Yadda said....
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1431117115/1#1

Quote:

"every moslem in Australia is a latent, wanna-be homicidal maniac" - Yadda QUESTION; What about the innocent moslems ? IMO, [logically] there are no innocent moslems [among persons who have come to the age of consent], and yet still declare themselves to be moslems. How so [logically] ? QUESTION; How credible is it that a person who is devout enough to insist that he is a moslem, is unaware of what ISLAM promotes, and is unaware of what the principle tenets of ISLAM are ? QUESTION; How 'innocent' is a person who agrees to give aid and comfort [and to give their own 'power'],      ...to a philosophy which transforms human beings, into homicidal maniacs ? QUESTION; How 'innocent' is a person who agrees to give aid and comfort [and to give their own 'power'],     ...to a philosophy which claims that murdering, in the cause of religious bigotry, is a religious virtue ?

Soren wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 8:55pm:

And that's why I said RELIGIOUS profiling, not racial profiling, Mr Expert-my-arse. Mohammed, peace be on him, what??

And how are you going to profile people based on religion exactly? Have a test for them when they arrive, say by forcing them to eat swine? Or are you just looking for turbans and headscarves.

Religious profiling is a stupid idea. It won't work and can't be implemented.

Just to add some realism.

This "UK Family" was 2 men and 9 children.

One of these children was 19 years old and they had already been placed on a watch list by the state of Israel.

Really sounds like a nice blonde haired, 2 children, mum and dad family doesn't it?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 25^th, 2015 at 2:48am:

Just to add some realism. This "UK Family" was 2 men and 9 children. One of these children was 19 years old and they had already been placed on a watch list by the state of Israel. Really sounds like a nice blonde haired, 2 children, mum and dad family doesn't it?

That doesn't justify USA first approving their travel and then stopping them at the airport.

If there was any justification for prohibiting their entry they should not have been granted permission in the first instance.

There is no evidence of any of them being on any watch list.

It seems this USA practice of last minute interception at boarding is not infrequent.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/23/the-british-muslim-familys-refused-entry-reveals-our-islamophobia-hypocrisy


Quote:

Obama, too, spoke up, using a speech after the California attacks to say, “If we’re to succeed in defeating terrorism we must enlist Muslim communities as some of our strongest allies, rather than push them away through suspicion and hate.” But canceling Muslim Brits’ travel plans at the very last minute risks having exactly that effect. Take the case of Amjal Masroor, a British imam who has spoken forcefully against the Islamic State (Isis) and about the need to stop young western Muslims from the illusion that they are accomplishing anything by going to fight with the group. “Isis and groups like that don’t represent Islam, they don’t represent humanity, and they’re part of the biggest problem that we face in the 21st century world,” Masroor told Sky News in an interview last year. Around the same time that the Mahmood family was denied entry to America, so was Masroor, following almost exactly the same pattern, having been granted permission to travel that was then revoked just before boarding. “[The] USA has the right to issue and revoke visa – I fully understand that,” Masroor wrote on Facebook after the incident. “However not forwarding any reasons infuriates ordinary people. It does not win the hearts and minds of people, it turns them off. I am amazed how irrational these processes are but does USA care about what you and I think?” If so-called ordinary Muslims – a tasteless phrase meaning the bulk of the world’s 1.6 billion adherents who never think of taking up violence in the name of their faith – can’t be treated like everyone else by American authorities in every manner of interaction, the answer is a resounding no.

Sun Tzu wrote on Dec 25^th, 2015 at 10:29am:

That doesn't justify USA first approving their travel and then stopping them at the airport. If there was any justification for prohibiting their entry they should not have been granted permission in the first instance. There is no evidence of any of them being on any watch list. It seems this USA practice of last minute interception at boarding is not infrequent.

There could be more to it than is what is apparent.

Quote:

............................. any justification for prohibiting their entry..........

The US allows who it wants into the US

mothra wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 12:21am:

They've gone stark raving mad.

you can only blame the terrorists for this...

no one else

why havent you called terrorist stark raving mad????...

I do not blame one country for looking after its own citizens....it sad its come to this.. but dont blame the wrong people..

and as Howard is still getting blamed for Monis...

those who point nasty fingers need to take a reality check.. he was allowed to remain when we didnt have anywhere near what we have today... >:( >:(

I would think the yanks have enough to do watching their home grown muslims..

Sprintcyclist wrote on Dec 25^th, 2015 at 10:40am:

The US allows who it wants into the US

Absolutely correct.

Lafayette wrote on Dec 25^th, 2015 at 2:15am:

Soren wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 8:55pm: And that's why I said RELIGIOUS profiling, not racial profiling, Mr Expert-my-arse. Mohammed, peace be on him, what?? And how are you going to profile people based on religion exactly? Have a test for them when they arrive, say by forcing them to eat swine? Or are you just looking for turbans and headscarves. Religious profiling is a stupid idea. It won't work and can't be implemented.

Just because it's not a perfect system does not mean it shouldn't be used

Maqqa wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 8:43am:

Lafayette wrote on Dec 25th, 2015 at 2:15am: Soren wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 8:55pm: And that's why I said RELIGIOUS profiling, not racial profiling, Mr Expert-my-arse. Mohammed, peace be on him, what?? And how are you going to profile people based on religion exactly? Have a test for them when they arrive, say by forcing them to eat swine? Or are you just looking for turbans and headscarves. Religious profiling is a stupid idea. It won't work and can't be implemented. Just because it's not a perfect system does not mean it shouldn't be used

quite true....the more you work on something the better it gets...look aty the advancements with dna.....everything has a reason for it...and profiling is something that is becoming more and more sophisticated  as time goes by...my son in law works in forensics.. and its scary where that is going...

I am sure one day we will all be microchipped...

Maqqa wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 8:43am:

Just because it's not a perfect system does not mean it shouldn't be used

It not being a perfect system isn't the reason why it shouldn't be used. The fact that it makes innocent people feel like they are being treated like criminals and may lead to them feeling persecuted and not a part of the society that they are in may ultimately lead to radicalization is why it shouldn't be used.


Also the fact that it is completely ineffective against real terrorists is the reason why it shouldn't be used.

Lafayette wrote on Dec 25^th, 2015 at 10:37am:

Sun Tzu wrote on Dec 25th, 2015 at 10:29am: That doesn't justify USA first approving their travel and then stopping them at the airport. If there was any justification for prohibiting their entry they should not have been granted permission in the first instance. There is no evidence of any of them being on any watch list. It seems this USA practice of last minute interception at boarding is not infrequent. There could be more to it than is what is apparent.

The family was to enter the USA on the Visa Waiver Program so it's possible that something stated on their Advance Passenger Data rendered them ineligible........or at least triggered an alert suggesting among other things, possible ineligibility. It would be one explanation for last minute interception. 

The process seems arbitrary and inconsistent. If somebody at US immigration knew that they would not be permitted to enter USA why did they not contact them before interception at aircraft boarding time?

Process appears to be discriminatory when no explanation is given.

Sun Tzu wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 11:57am:

The process seems arbitrary and inconsistent. If somebody at US immigration knew that they would not be permitted to enter USA why did they not contact them before interception at aircraft boarding time? Process appears to be discriminatory when no explanation is given.

They applied for their visas over the Internet, I imagine if you tick all the right boxes the 'approval' online is automated until those applications are inspected manually, when a red flag pops up........and it did on this occasion when checked in-depth. From what has now come to light, they were perfectly right to stop this lot from entering the US; even getting on the plane............ it's just a pity they couldn't redirect their journey to the Middle East where their masters are based........and kick them out of UK for good.. 

Sun Tzu wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 11:57am:

The process seems arbitrary and inconsistent. If somebody at US immigration knew that they would not be permitted to enter USA why did they not contact them before interception at aircraft boarding time?

They probably wanted to see if the travelers were carrying anything in their bags or on their persons that they could exploit for their intelligence value. Once you send through your belongings in customs it could be checked when you are unaware of it.


Sun Tzu wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 11:57am:

Process appears to be discriminatory when no explanation is given.

No government is obliged to give an explanation to anyone as to why they can't visit there. Nor does anyone have the right to visit.

It could also be a part of a larger intelligence operation.

Lafayette wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 12:30pm:

Sun Tzu wrote on Dec 26th, 2015 at 11:57am: The process seems arbitrary and inconsistent. If somebody at US immigration knew that they would not be permitted to enter USA why did they not contact them before interception at aircraft boarding time? They probably wanted to see if the travelers were carrying anything in their bags or on their persons that they could exploit for their intelligence value. Once you send through your belongings in customs it could be checked when you are unaware of it. Sun Tzu wrote on Dec 26th, 2015 at 11:57am: Process appears to be discriminatory when no explanation is given. No government is obliged to give an explanation to anyone as to why they can't visit there. Nor does anyone have the right to visit. It could also be a part of a larger intelligence operation.

Do you mean like the intelligence operation that failed to prevent 9/11?

There is no intelligence in the USA immigration system. They can arbitrarily refuse entry and do so as they please. If they had any real evidence against any person they prohibit they could easily have performed interrogations by allowing them into the USA and then intercepting them there. However they can't do that because when people enter the USA they have rights.

Before people enter the USA they have no rights against injustice by USA immigration. That is why arbitrary unexplained prohibition is practiced at country of departure.

Sun Tzu wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 12:38pm:

Do you mean like the intelligence operation that failed to prevent 9/11?

9/11 was a massive intelligence failure. Particularly with regards to the CIA not sharing information with the FBI. The FBI was actually searching for at least one of the hijackers and wasn't even aware that he was in the USA but the CIA were.


Sun Tzu wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 12:38pm:

There is no intelligence in the USA immigration system. They can arbitrarily refuse entry and do so as they please. If they had any real evidence against any person they prohibit they could easily have performed interrogations by allowing them into the USA and then intercepting them there. However they can't do that because when people enter the USA they have rights.

There is a great deal of intelligence in the US immigration system, but it does have flaws. It is not perfect but no system is.

You suggest that if they had evidence against a person that they would be able to let them in, and then intercept the person when that person is in the US.

That is only if the person is currently planning an attack and ready to carry it out, and only if you are aware of their plot.

However, that is often not the case. Instead, through the intelligence process the USA may become aware of things about a person that may put them as a potential threat on the threat matrix and as a result, would rather not have that person visit the US in the first place. That information is not necessarily limited to what the passengers may have said and done in the past, but includes what their associations are including people they may be related to or know in the US.

This isn't James Bond stuff.. It's usually based on having a person assessed for being a threat on a threat matrix.

There is usually a lot more done behind the scenes to come to a decision like this.


Sun Tzu wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 12:38pm:

Before people enter the USA they have no rights against injustice by USA immigration. That is why arbitrary unexplained prohibition is practiced at country of departure.

They have no rights when they arrive either. They're technically not in the US until they pass customs and immigration and if customs and immigration decide the person is a threat then they'll get sent back to where they came from.

ACLU is fighting the Nazi actions of U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

https://www.aclu.org/news/border-agents-harass-americans-taking-pictures-threaten-smash-cameras?redirect=free-speech/border-agents-harass-americans-taking-pictures-threaten-smash-cameras


Quote:

Unconstitutional Policy Stifles Free Speech Right to Document Abuses, Says San Diego ACLU FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org SAN DIEGO – U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s policy and practice of prohibiting the use of cameras and video recorders at or near U.S. ports of entry is unconstitutional, said the American Civil Liberties Union Border Affiliates and the law firm Morrison & Foerster LLP in a lawsuit filed late yesterday. Clients in the case, two U.S. citizens were attempting to document environmental harms and human rights abuses when border agents stopped, detained, and interrogated them and then deleted their photographs. The citizens hope that the court will order the Department of Homeland Security to end its policy of interfering with Americans’ free speech right to take photographs and make video recordings of matters of political and human rights interest. “The border is not a Constitution-free zone,” said David Loy, legal director of the San Diego ACLU. “Border agents are not above the law, and the law guarantees our right to hold them accountable by documenting their conduct.” The suit charges that Ray Askins, a U.S. citizen who lives in Mexicali, and Christian Ramirez, a U.S. citizen who lives in San Diego, were stopped in separate incidents on the U.S. side of the border. Askins was conducting research for a report about excessive pollution caused by the inspection system at the border for an environmental conference when he was stopped. Several border agents told him they would “smash the camera” if he did not delete photos he took of a secondary inspection area at the Calexico Port of Entry. He was attempting to demonstrate that the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) does not make full and proper use of inspection areas, creating longer delays at the border crossing and thus causing more pollution from emissions of vehicles waiting in line to cross. Askins said that the officers who confronted him behaved aggressively even though Askins was not posing a threat or resisting. He was handcuffed and subjected to an invasive and embarrassing physical search. His camera was confiscated and, when it was returned to him, all but one photograph he had just taken at the port of entry had been deleted. Ramirez, who works for Alliance San Diego, a nonprofit social justice group that, among other things, monitors human rights issues along the U.S.-Mexico border, had just crossed the border when he observed male CBP agents patting down women. He snapped several photos, because it appeared the agents were only searching women. Immediately, two men who appeared to be private security officers approached him, asked for his personal identification documents, and asked him to stop taking photographs. CBP agents soon appeared, confronted Ramirez and his wife, and asked why he was taking photographs.  When he refused, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent said, “Give me one other reason to take you down.” The officer took the Ramirezes’ passports and his phone, and deleted all the photos Ramirez had just taken. Official CBP security policies prohibit visitors at CBP-controlled facilities from using cameras and video recording devices without prior approval from the senior CBP official or someone she or he designates. The ACLU lawsuit charges that the policies violate the First Amendment and that Americans have the free speech right to document the public operations of law enforcement agencies. “Americans have a right to chronicle the activities of law enforcement,” said M. Andrew Woodmansee, partner with Morrison & Foerster. “The Department of Justice recently has stated that the right of a citizen to gather information about government officials –including photographs—‘serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting the free discussion of governmental affairs.’  While the government has an interest in guaranteeing the security of the United States, it should have no role in stifling speech or violating our right to be secure in our person and our papers.” The lawsuit seeks to stop the government from preventing or interfering with the public’s First Amendment speech rights and asks that Askins receive damages for the violations he experienced. The ACLU Border Affiliates comprise the ACLU affiliates in San Diego, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.

Lafayette wrote on Dec 25^th, 2015 at 2:15am:

Soren wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 8:55pm: And that's why I said RELIGIOUS profiling, not racial profiling, Mr Expert-my-arse. Mohammed, peace be on him, what?? And how are you going to profile people based on religion exactly? Have a test for them when they arrive, say by forcing them to eat swine? Or are you just looking for turbans and headscarves. Religious profiling is a stupid idea. It won't work and can't be implemented.

It is implemented by Muslims and works for them. A lot of Muslim murderers, from Kenya to Syria and India, from Thailand to Labia,  do use religious profiling for the purposes of carrying out their Islamic religious duty of jihad. If Muslims can religiously profile others I do not see why others couldn't religiously profile Muslims.

In most Muslims countries religion is identified on various documents already so they are doing it already among themselves. We should accept their own self-profiling. If they say they are Muslims we should accept that and treat them accordingly.

Soren wrote on Dec 28^th, 2015 at 2:36pm:

It is implemented by Muslims and works for them. A lot of Muslim murderers, from Kenya to Syria and India, from Thailand to Labia,  do use religious profiling for the purposes of carrying out their Islamic religious duty of jihad. If Muslims can religiously profile others I do not see why others couldn't religiously profile Muslims. In most Muslims countries religion is identified on various documents already so they are doing it already among themselves. We should accept their own self-profiling. If they say they are Muslims we should accept that and treat them accordingly.

Oh, so let's become like Saudi Arabia and Syria. Yeah, great values.

Lafayette wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 9:25am:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 26th, 2015 at 8:43am: Just because it's not a perfect system does not mean it shouldn't be used It not being a perfect system isn't the reason why it shouldn't be used. The fact that it makes innocent people feel like they are being treated like criminals and may lead to them feeling persecuted and not a part of the society that they are in may ultimately lead to radicalization is why it shouldn't be used. Also the fact that it is completely ineffective against real terrorists is the reason why it shouldn't be used.

So you're going to appease & acquiesce to them on that basis?

two men & 9 children .... one who is 19 (hardly classed as a child)?

Where are their mothers?

Sounds like good enough grounds for a check by the US & a check by UK authorities as well.

Syrian born British woman denied entry to Australia. The spooks of Western Countries are competing with each other to see which one can cause the biggest furor. She was 4 years old when her family left Syria.

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/dec/24/british-syrian-born-woman-has-visa-revoked-without-explanation-before-flight-to-australia


Quote:

A British woman who was born in Syria has been refused entry into Australia, after her visa was issued and then revoked without explanation. Zahra Ramadani, 30, from west London, was due to fly to Sydney on Thursday with a friend but was contacted by the Australian High Commission on Wednesday to say her visa had been revoked and that she was no longer eligible for entry into Australia. The incident comes in the wake of several controversial visa refusals. The Australian government was criticised this week after it initially refused to grant visas to the family of a dying Pakistani student, who is too sick to fly home and is being cared for in a homeless shelter. In the UK a British imam was the second British Muslim to report he had been refused entry to the US after his business visa was revoked without explanation as he attempted to board a plane to New York. Ramadani, a project manager in business development for Marks and Spencer, told the Guardian she felt the only explanation for the rejection of her visa to Australia is her place of birth. Her family originally fled to Syria from Iraq in 1980 before seeking refuge in the UK in 1989 when she was four years old. She said: “I’m really disappointed because I’m a British citizen and I have lived here most of my life. I’m law-abiding and I lead a pretty normal Londoner’s life. I am not remotely religious.” “I didn’t even know I needed a visa. I thought, well, I’m British, there’s the commonwealth, you don’t need one.”

Lafayette wrote on Dec 28^th, 2015 at 3:25pm:

Soren wrote on Dec 28th, 2015 at 2:36pm: It is implemented by Muslims and works for them. A lot of Muslim murderers, from Kenya to Syria and India, from Thailand to Labia,  do use religious profiling for the purposes of carrying out their Islamic religious duty of jihad. If Muslims can religiously profile others I do not see why others couldn't religiously profile Muslims. In most Muslims countries religion is identified on various documents already so they are doing it already among themselves. We should accept their own self-profiling. If they say they are Muslims we should accept that and treat them accordingly. Oh, so let's become like Saudi Arabia and Syria. Yeah, great values.

Let US become like them????



You are a Muslims, so reign in your jihadis and then you can talk about US. Until then, you are the sea they swim in.

Sun Tzu wrote on Dec 28^th, 2015 at 6:12pm:

Syrian born British woman denied entry to Australia. The spooks of Western Countries are competing with each other to see which one can cause the biggest furor. She was 4 years old when her family left Syria. http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/dec/24/british-syrian-born-woman-has-visa-revoked-without-explanation-before-flight-to-australia Quote: A British woman who was born in Syria has been refused entry into Australia, after her visa was issued and then revoked without explanation. Zahra Ramadani, 30, from west London, was due to fly to Sydney on Thursday with a friend but was contacted by the Australian High Commission on Wednesday to say her visa had been revoked and that she was no longer eligible for entry into Australia. The incident comes in the wake of several controversial visa refusals. The Australian government was criticised this week after it initially refused to grant visas to the family of a dying Pakistani student, who is too sick to fly home and is being cared for in a homeless shelter. In the UK a British imam was the second British Muslim to report he had been refused entry to the US after his business visa was revoked without explanation as he attempted to board a plane to New York. Ramadani, a project manager in business development for Marks and Spencer, told the Guardian she felt the only explanation for the rejection of her visa to Australia is her place of birth. Her family originally fled to Syria from Iraq in 1980 before seeking refuge in the UK in 1989 when she was four years old. She said: “I’m really disappointed because I’m a British citizen and I have lived here most of my life. I’m law-abiding and I lead a pretty normal Londoner’s life. I am not remotely religious.” “I didn’t even know I needed a visa. I thought, well, I’m British, there’s the commonwealth, you don’t need one.”

Pity they don't deal with you as well.

Lafayette wrote on Dec 25^th, 2015 at 2:15am:

Soren wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 8:55pm: And that's why I said RELIGIOUS profiling, not racial profiling, Mr Expert-my-arse. Mohammed, peace be on him, what?? And how are you going to profile people based on religion exactly? Have a test for them when they arrive, say by forcing them to eat swine? Or are you just looking for turbans and headscarves. Religious profiling is a stupid idea. It won't work and can't be implemented.

Lol. Counter terrorism expert. Of all things you could have claimed to be.

Lafayette wrote on Dec 25^th, 2015 at 2:15am:

Soren wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 8:55pm: And that's why I said RELIGIOUS profiling, not racial profiling, Mr Expert-my-arse. Mohammed, peace be on him, what?? And how are you going to profile people based on religion exactly? Have a test for them when they arrive, say by forcing them to eat swine? Or are you just looking for turbans and headscarves. Religious profiling is a stupid idea. It won't work and can't be implemented.

it'll work perfectly well

Its already used, comprehensively, along with racial profiling.

Gnads wrote on Dec 28^th, 2015 at 5:58pm:

So you're going to appease & acquiesce to them on that basis? two men & 9 children .... one who is 19 (hardly classed as a child)? Where are their mothers? Sounds like good enough grounds for a check by the US & a check by UK authorities as well.

You do realize that I am not opposed to actually denying them entry into the US, right? I stated as such and said that the US Government's decision to deny entry is probably based on something tangible. Not just religion.

ian wrote on Dec 28^th, 2015 at 11:15pm:

Lol. Counter terrorism expert. Of all things you could have claimed to be.

Yes, and I use Behavior Pattern Recognition to identify subjects for further scrutiny. To just base it on religion, or what you perceive to be their religion will mean that you will completely miss those that could be threats but due to the nature of a person's religion not always being apparent in their physical appearance (unless they want it to be). It'll also mean that you waste time and resources on people that don't pose a threat, when you should be looking for those who do.

The Israelis made the same mistake you did and it resulted in the Lod Airport Massacre in 1972 which killed 26 and injured 79 because the terrorists were actually Japanese and in no way appeared Muslim.

Religious profiling is a waste of time because a trained terrorist is going to hide their being a Muslim and if they're a convert to Islam from, say, Germany, being blonde hair and blue eyes and a German name you will not know it at all and it's not like their documents will show it.

Behavior Pattern Recognition works on recognizing the actions and behaviors of a person, which, together fit a profile of someone that deserves further scrutiny. It could be the way they look at security, their posture, gestures and body language they use, their clothing etc.