[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Eric Rudolph, the Olympic Park Bomber. I don't know if he fits this profile perfectly, though.

But either way, like elwood said earlier, this is a great example of why profiling "works", right?

Surely people who are against gun control and think the Constitution has been subverted are "more" likely to commit acts of terrorism than your average person.

Oh, now I'm not saying all people who are against gun control and think the Constitution has been subverted are terrorists! Of course not! Some of my best friends are against gun control and think the Constitution has been subverted! But remember the old adage: not all people who are against gun control and think the Constitution has been subverted are Oklahoma City and Olympic Park bombers, but all Oklahoma City and Olympic Park bombers are against gun control and think the Constitution has been subverted!

So at the next security screening, let's allow Grandma go unmolested, and let's make sure we pull angry-looking white guys aside for an extra pat down. And remember to lecture anyone who disagrees about how "irrational" they are, and how they're just rubes who don't "understand basic probability".

Besides, we wouldn't have to take these steps if moderate anti-gun control advocates and subverted-Constitutional theorists would strongly disavow the acts of terrorists in their ranks! Where are those moderate voices!?!? We need to hear a constant din of disapproval from them before we stop profiling them! Plus, I have some polling here that shows gun control advocates and people who think the Constitution has been subverted think that "sometimes" violence against the state is justified -- and they responded affirmatively to that survey question at a much higher rate than those who believe in gun control, or are ambivalent about it. Again, these people should, nay must be profiled and watched closely. If you disagree, you're just a product of left-wing propaganda organs like our public schools, who don't teach our children basic probability and instead replace it with bleeding-heart messages that put us all in danger from these radical gun control opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]

good post

[/ QUOTE ]

...which means little or nothing without some evidence to back it up. So far nobody has listed even a modest number of persons who fit the profile and were involved in terrorism. The state website might nearly as well have been saying that green-eyed people are more likely to be terrorists if all there is is 3 cases.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you actually reading any of this thread MMMMMM?

Recall:

"Of course it's not "statistically supported". You can't "statistically support" it, because no one knows how many people are sufficiently "anti-gun control", and no one knows exactly how many people believe that "the Constitution has been subverted" to be part of the profile. The profile is just vague nonsense.

So of course it's not "statistically supported", but my question is: since when has that mattered when people call for the authorities to use profiling? Hence why "statistically support this instance of profiling" is nothing more than moving the goal posts. "

[/ QUOTE ]

I am reading this thread, but apparently...you think I am some other poster? I had been thinking that your previous posts and responses to me might have seemed slightly odd, but I assure you, I am no other poster, and I post only as myself.

Some profiling can be statistically supported and some cannot. Statistically supported profiling is not necessarily ethically or morally supportable, though. I would think it only supportable as a policy in time of war, perhaps, and even then I would be very chary of infringement of rights. God knows the Neo-Cons are eroding our rights lately at an ever faster clip, it seems.

My question is whether this particular profile has any basis to support it. Have domestic terrorists other than McVeigh and his cohort, and perhaps one or two mentioned elsewhere in this thread, espoused the views cited on the state website? So far only a few uncertain examples have been offered.

I agree that government officials may not need much in the way of facts to derive agendas or profiles that suit their likings, and that is what I think is happening with this state website - which is why I have asked several times if anyone can think of other examples. If someone can provide numerous other examples then I will admit that the state's profile might have some basis, but even still I would think it odd for them to be making such a point of it. I am actually quite curious(!) if there are other examples, or if the state developed and published this profile based on less than half-a-dozen examples.

Aren't you curious how many examples fit the profile, and don't you think the whole rather odd too? I wonder if the Pennsylvania page will remain up for long.