It is difficult to reply to this concisely as in needed on an internet forum, but I will try. Please excuse my lack of explanatory detail.

After 9/11, if took much to long for me to discern the difference between the following statements:

The perpetrators of 9/11 did this because they were Muslim.

And...

The perpetrators of 9/11 happened to be Muslim.

A lot of people, are still operating on the first. I have chosen to accept the second.

People in general do not understand people that are not like themselves. It is easy to turn this misunderstanding into an irrational fear but thankfully, most do not. When the dissimilarities are based on visual clues such as skin color or religious dress, people allow themselves to see the clues and relate the specific unknown person to the source of their fear or misconception, and personalize the immediate situation. When we are in public situations with a diverse populations, these irrational thoughts and decisions happen among individuals.

The concern that I have is that when these irrational reactions are made known to those who are given responsibility for the safety and security of everyone under their care, they occasionally accept the irrational fear themselves, often without evidence or probable cause (not used in a legal sense). We expect greater discernment and rationality of these responsible people, but it is not always the case.

It is normal to want to reduce all risk to zero if you have been given responsibility for the safety of a group of people. So, if the decision becomes one of which provides that lowest risk, one may to decide to remove the suspected danger, even if the danger is non-existent. It is a decision based on emotion, influenced by the demands of time and schedules and the brain playing games of "what if" with one's reasonable side.

While it is normal to want to reduce the risk to zero, it is unreasonable to think that one can reduce risk to zero. At times, our unreasonable nature takes over our training and knowledge. It is a constant battle in which we will all make mistakes from time to time. The mistakes are still mistakes and wrong.

It is the reason that given the luxury of time in a place devoid of the pressure of the moment, the obvious nature of the irrational decision becomes apparent. In these cases, most organizations will try to mitigate the damage thorough the only means they have, apologies and financial incentives. In cases of great hurt and distress, these will almost always seem trivial and possibly insulting.

The knowledge, intelligence and experience of the decision makers only makes the likelihood of error smaller.

I would be more surprised if they never happened.