I actually, in this case, do not think I misunderstand.
Your definition of "suspicious behavior" is ridiculous, at best. It reflects the ignorant Faux news watcher who could not pick out a problem person if it killed them.
My definition? Hardly. YOU were the one that commented on the behavior of the person mentioned in the article.
I never said it was "impossible to identify potential security threats" by how they behave. I said that identifiers highlighted by media fools might mislead you.
You actually said nothing of the kind. Your comment was directed toward the behavior of the person involved. You then went on to extrapolate that example to the generic, with the conclusion of
"Believe me, there will be nothing obvious about a real bad guy. His entire stick will be to blend in and you will only notice him when he is good and ready."
No mention of media hyped stereotypes or secret clues that only you can identify.
There is a "narrow" method of profiling? How so? What is the "wide" method?
The narrow method that, again, YOU identified - Asian and Middle Eastern Muslims. You used the example to illustrate how such profiling would have missed Tim McVeigh. Again - your example, not mine.
The question for you, mr. profiler, is how would you identify a legitimate threat prior to that threat boarding a flight? I already have my plan. How about you?
Hint: the last person I might suspect is the one who acts different from US behavior but the same as another behavior concordant with a different culture. i.e. devout Muslims pray five times a day to Mecca. If one acted as a devout Muslim yet did not pray five times, I would suspect him. But that takes global knowledge, something many Americans lack. Heck your president can not even find Iran on a global map! How did you reelect such a moron!
You are not alone. Less than 5% of the prisoners in GITMO have anything to do with terrorism or Al Queda, per your own Pentagon. Good show, 'Merica. 'Mericans imprison people, well, just because.
Thanks for the fish........
Truley laughable. Only those who are privy to your "global knowledge" are able to identify potential threats. Interesting. And this global knowledge somehow involves spotting somebody, for example, who "acted as a devout Muslim but yet did not pray five times." So in the context of your contact with that person, which I'm assuming at best is limited to that person's time at the airport, you are going to be able to determine that he or she is in fact devout, despite the fact that he or she does not pray 5 times a day. How exactly does one act devout if one is intentionally hiding such behavior in order to not draw attention to themselves? How, exactly, is your "global knowledge" going to give you the insight to spot Muslims who act devout, despite the fact that they are in fact not acting devout?
As far as your predictable and formulaic attenmpts to pigeonhole me into some sort of political leaning you feel comfortable refuting... come now. You can talk about Faux News and the White House and GITMO all day, and you and your global knowlegde will still have no idea what my politics are.
After all, maybe Im a devout liberal who isn't acting liberal.... hmmmmmmm....
