First off "our country" means different things to different people. I am a stupid old guy, I have no opinion about discrimination. Religiously, height wise, anything you can think of, just seems to me all these people get a lot of money and I am left behind because I have nothing to go on, because I am a white European.
By the way, what's your opinion of the Japanese internment camps? Just curious.
What would you like to know from a guy who is married to a Japanese woman, consider I wasn't American when I married her? It's Love not a frikking passport. Internment camps? Put all the muslim into it. What would be their reaction?

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.

The 9/11 perpetrators did it primarily because of their view of their religion, warped as it may have been, to consider themselves martyrs. I do agree about no profiling at screening checkpoints.

The 9/11 perpetrators did it primarily because of their view of US politics, warped as it may have been. Their view of their religion was actually not fundamentally uniform. Their view of their politics and of US politics was actually fundamentally uniform.

Some of those not in favor of bigoted (including racist) profiling at the airport screening checkpoints may be fine with bigoted profiling beyond the airport screening checkpoint. That one or both such groups may have trouble dealing with that distinction isn't a surprise.

Profiling those persons whom haven't committed a crime based on such targeted person's ethnicity and/or religion just creates more, bigger haystacks in which to loose needles -- that or it creates more needles.

The reason it is called "discrimination" is that it is a standard applied to members certain groups and not members of other groups. For example, even if you had been there said "it's a go" on the phone (and aparently, that's not what the lady in this case actually said), you most likely would not have arroused the FA's suspicions because you are white.

When white people are discriminated against, there is money there too (google "Ricci v. DeStefano" if you don't believe me). It just so happens that non-whites are discriminated against more than whites are in this country, so most plaintiffs in discrimination lawsuits are non-white.

Do you feel that you are discriminated against and can't make a case because you are white? Or are you upset that you aren't discriminated against, so you are unable to chance upon a profitable lawsuit? Or do you feel that whenever non-white people are wronged for any reason, they can sue and get money whereas whites can't? (If you believe this, it isn't really true at all as lawsuits are tossed out left and right because a nexus between a discriminatory motive and an adverse action cannot be established). Or do you mean something else by "I have nothing to go on, because I am a white European"?

Wow, complicated subject.

Yup, another "flying when brown" incident

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...Its-phone.html

Even after being searched by TSA staff she wasn't allowed back on the flight - presumably because of "an abundance of caution" but was allowed on a later flight - which is nonsensical as if she wasn't "fit" to fly on one flight, why should she be any safer on a later flight?

Oh, I know I'm discriminated against. However discriminating against me is seen as a good thing.
http://www.ronbrown.org/Apply/Eligib...uirements.aspx

The current state of security theatre in this county is a case of bipartisan FAIL.
Do you remember "Federalize to Professionalize"? I'm still waiting for the second part of that to happen. Paging Tom Daschle...

You need to work on your math skills. The question you are implicitly asking is, "What percentage of terrorists traveling on airplanes are Muslim?" The question you should be asking is, "What percentage of Muslims traveling on airplanes are terrorists?" I believe that you will find the latter to be a wee bit lower.

As for what happens to your wife and mother, that is also disgusting and you have every right to be pissed.

Mike

Mike,

While we're talking math (sometimes not the easiest subject for those TSA-types), here's another question that's worth asking... "What percentage of travelers are terrorists?"

Or, put another way: "How many non-terrorist travelers are there per terrorist traveler?" Of course, answering this question would produce a divide-by-zero error.

I suppose that the DHS would tell you that there is indeed some non-zero number of terrorists that travel.

However, they might also tell you that upon going through the rigorous screening of the TSA and observing the near-impenetrable layers of security they will decide that the risk of detection is so very high and the penalties for said detection being cruel and draconian, that they will retreat back to their super-secret planning to develop even more devious nefarious plans to which DHS must respond with greater levels of security provided by contractors with lucrative contracts thanks to enterprising former high level employees.

BTW, division by zero is undefined (and as such must cause an error in electronic calculations) which is oddly the same as many TSA procedures.