I'm pointing out the misleading way that the article is written. There is a link to "DHS internal documents" in the OP's article that were not from DHS, but from the state. They could have said state restricted reports or LE sensitive or something more accurate. To me, that draws me to conclude the article pushes the boundaries of legitimate reporting for a scare story. That same strategy for which they accuse DHS.

I think DHS has become a whiping boy for misdirected anger. ::cough::state and justice depts::cough::

I would also expect you got similar LE reports before DHS was founded?

Most articles on sensitive subjects are certainly colored by the views of the writer, I'm sure this is not different.

It just annoys me that the media and governments have to go all out in order to try and not point the finger at any particular group out of fear of placing blame on people which can't be blamed because they are either a minority or different in some way, while another group ends up being the "default non threatening group" they can replace them with.

I'm sure that domestic attackers are a big problem, just look at the recent tragedy in Norway, but look around the world as a whole, not just the US, and you will see that terrorist attacks are performed 90% of the time by one group in particular, the same group which was not represented at all in the video.

I guess my outrage was more about this annoying trend towards avoiding the real problem, rather than the nature of the actual article.

Just to echo the other sentiments in this thread, it is fantastic that we can have a mature discussion on this forum about subjects as divisive as these without people getting angry with each other for having different opinions <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

As Voltaire said: "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

Lets make sure we keep this very basic freedom alive, don't let anyone take it from you.

All hail the brotherhood of the Yard <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I know some DHS guys. They're friends of mine. In fact, they are brother Elks. The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center is here. I have no beef with the troops. It's upper management that scares me sometimes. Just saying.

I agree that the guys at the bottom of the totem pole are rarely/ever to blame for these sorts of things, I'm sure they just hired an ad agency for this, who are used to making politically correct commercials for TV.

I agree. The entire well-meaning, but perhaps mis-guided executive homeland security group that distrusts us all.

To stretch a little more off-topic. Small scale crime studies show low crime is very dependent on relationships with your neighbors and concern for your surroundings versus LE or other government intervention. I always think, if the government could effect a safe society, prisons and housing projects would be the ideal example of safe controlled society.

Sorry if I misunderstood monsterdog's intent with the original post. I just get very riled about the very bias of press we get on both sides on the issues. It's hard to find any legitimate reporting anymore.

Why can't the world be more like scrapyard forums? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Well, I didn't want a political discussion, as far as I'm concerned most politicians and power groups (such as the mass media) end up being bad, even with good initial intentions.

I don't have a cure for this, people most definitely need governing, its just a shame the governing bodies tend to attract very selfish people.

That being said, I think the issue here is more one of not wanting to offend, and by that very decision ending up offending someone else. Portray the world as it is, don't try to sugarcoat it and let me make up my own mind.


Hear, hear, brother! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I just want to point out an interesting fact- Switzerland didn't have universal suffrage until 1990 (when the Canton of Appenzell Innerrhoden was made to allow women to vote by the Swiss supreme court.)

back to your regularly scheduled discussion.

Does this make us Poland? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" /> On a serious note that name has always bothered me too, I wonder if they put any thought into the similarity at the time?

I agree with Horn Dog and others, it USUALLY isn't the "GRUNTS" that are the problem. They are just following orders, orders many times they do not want to enforce. It IS the Upper management that has lost touch with the people and their own minds (along with ad agencies and the media as a whole).

As Monster Dog said, just tell the story, AS IT IS and Let me make my own decisions as to who is right or wrong. That being said, Profiling to me isn't wrong. If you are looking for a child rapist, you won't have to worry about a 95 year old man or woman in a wheelchair wearing an oxygen bottle. CONCENTRATE ON THE ONES THAT ARE KNOWN FOR THE INTENT YOU ARE WANTING TO STOP!

If that includes predominantly a certain race/nationality/sex/race or folks with a certain job, so be it. Watch those folks.!

I absolutely agree, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, its probably a duck.

I work with large amounts of information every day, profiling this data is the only way to make sense of it in time for it to be useful.

Such as profiling everyone most likely to be a terrorist before they blow something up. If you don't find your duck in that group, you can start expanding your search to other groups.