Skip to content

Racial Profiling

Sunday, Donald Trump doubled down on racism, saying that the US will have to consider the use of racial profiling:

Well I think profiling is something that we’re going to have to start thinking about as a country. Other countries do it, you look at Israel and you look at others, they do it and they do it successfully. And I hate the concept of profiling but we have to start using common sense and we have to use our heads. Other countries do it, and it’s not the worst thing to do.


This is just the latest stupid idea coming from Trump. Immediately after the massacre in Orlando, Trump renewed his call for a ban on Muslims entering the country. Never mind that the shooter was born in the US, so a ban would have done absolutely nothing other than maybe helping to push more unstable Muslims like the Orlando shooter over the edge.

Then he claimed that Muslims should turn in other Muslims who display signs of being radicalized to the police and FBI, ignoring the fact that Muslims are already doing that.

He then tried to blame Orlando on Obama (with help from John McCain), but that didn’t work either.

So now he wants us to crack down on the vast majority of Muslims who are just as appalled by terrorism as the rest of us (probably more so since it can only cause them more problems). Like, is there any way Trump could play into the hands of the terrorists any more than that?

Jeff Stahler
© Jeff Stahler



  1. Hassan wrote:

    Only problem is that muslim is not race. So I am not sure how he will profile white/black/brown based on religion. If he somehow profiles religiosity, then terrorists have not been religious at all.

    Monday, June 20, 2016 at 4:58 am | Permalink
  2. ebdoug wrote:

    Hassan thank you for pointing out that black Muslims have been here since the early 1800s or earlier. Christian is not a race either. Hebrew is not a race. The Syrians he wants to exclude are mostly christian and Muslim. Without asking the Religious questions, how does one know? And we have no right to know.

    Monday, June 20, 2016 at 7:53 am | Permalink
  3. David Freeman wrote:

    ‘Is there any way Trump could play into the hands of the terrorists any more than that?’

    Trump must be a false flag operator. That’s the only possible explanation! Ok, that’s insane, but no crazier than most of what he and his supporters claim. May the The Flying Spaghetti Monster help us!

    Monday, June 20, 2016 at 8:28 am | Permalink
  4. Iron Knee wrote:

    Hassan, I don’t think Trump is interested in actual solutions, he only cares about blaming everything on religious, ethnic, and racial minorities. So why would he care if religious profiling doesn’t make any sense at all?

    It makes the same amount of sense as building a “yuuuge” border wall and getting the Mexicans to pay for it. Never mind that he claims it would be easy to build a secure wall along a 2000 mile long border, when the Berlin wall was less than 100 miles long, was far more elaborate, and didn’t stop people from crossing. Not to mention the problem of how to keep people from simply sailing from Mexico in the Gulf or the Pacific Ocean.

    But I like your last point. It sounds like the shooter in Orlando was hardly religious at all.

    Monday, June 20, 2016 at 9:28 am | Permalink
  5. Carter Shmeckle wrote:

    “It sounds like the shooter in Orlando was hardly religious at all.”

    From the transcript of the “shooter’s” 911 call:

    “… In the name of God the Merciful, the beneficent ..Praise be to God, and prayers as well as peace be upon the prophet of God … I wanna let you know, I’m in Orlando and I did the shootings….I pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi of the Islamic State….I pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi may God protect him … on behalf of the Islamic State.”

    Yeah, he sounded like a real atheist.

    Monday, June 20, 2016 at 3:28 pm | Permalink
  6. PatriotSGT wrote:

    On the single issue of profiling, it is and will continue to be an often used tool of law enforcement and security specialists. I profile individuals every day in my work, and i’d bet everyone of you does in your everyday lives. Now what separates constructive profiling from discrination is how and why that profiling is done.
    While on convoy duty in Iraq and Afghanistan we profiled civilians 100% of the time. It was not however based on ethnicity (I can’t tell the difference between an Iraqi and a Kurd or a Shite from a Sunni) but more based on a whats wrong with this picture, what is out of place or not normal. We looked at body language, dress, and physioligical signs.
    In my civilian work we look at those same things along with background information (crim history, earnings, finances, job, and other factors).
    As joe citizen when I use an ATM or public transpotation I use my wartime experiences and look at their face and eyes. It comes down to more of the later and a little of race or appearance.
    Every screener at an airport hopefully profiles. Hopefully people who purchased their tickets last minute with cash are looked at harder then a 43 year old business women wh used her company credit card to buy the ticket 3 weeks before flying. Hopefully a gun dealer will scrutinize a nervous middle eastern looking male buying an assault rifle with extra ammo and call in a tip to the FBI. When we say all profiling is bad and call people names like racist or xenophobes, people are less willing to say something when they see something that could save 50 lives.

    Monday, June 20, 2016 at 4:24 pm | Permalink
  7. Iron Knee wrote:

    PSgt, I never said anything against profiling, as long as that profiling is not done on a “protected class”. Like, if a policeman stops someone just because of their race or sexual orientation, that’s wrong. You have to be careful about the “out of place” argument, because that’s used all the time to harass people of color just because they are walking through a “white neighborhood”. Is there actually anything wrong with that picture?

    Carter, if you paid any attention to what people who knew him said about him, it sounds more likely that he was trying to get himself killed and get lots of news headlines. He wasn’t particularly religious in any normal sense of the word. But what I want to know is, what’s your point? Do you think we should kick out all Muslims from our country? Including all these people —

    Monday, June 20, 2016 at 5:30 pm | Permalink
  8. PatriotSGT wrote:

    IK, your exactly right, but no good profiler would initiate a targeting based on race alone. If I saw a neatly groomed black male in a white neighborhood, it would only warrant a glance. But if I saw a baggy pants, tatted up dissheveled black male in an upscale white neighborhood I would need to then continue evaluating and looking for additional markers before targeting. It does come down to instinct and training.But you are absolutely right that it may appear like single criteria profiling like race. However, I have never seen profiling on race alone. There are always other indicators, mainly body language, eye contact, or behaviors considered. In your Trump quote he never mentioned racial or religious profiling either, unless you just didn’t include that.

    Monday, June 20, 2016 at 5:53 pm | Permalink
  9. Iron Knee wrote:

    The quote from Trump was in response to a question about whether he supported greater law enforcement scrutiny of Muslim Americans. Also, he used Israel as his big example, and they do profiling based on ethnicity and religion. Both are protected classes in the US.

    The question to Trump wasn’t about somebody doing something suspicious. The question was about if we should profile people based solely on their religion (and ethnicity).

    I do agree with you that profiling itself can be ok. Like being suspicious of someone buying an airplane ticket with cash at the last minute. Would you be suspicious of someone just because they are carrying a firearm?

    Monday, June 20, 2016 at 6:07 pm | Permalink
  10. Ralph wrote:

    ​Came across this short interview with a young British Muslim, Soheil Ahmed, whose profile​ ​appears to​ ​bear a remarkable similarity to​ ​the Orlando shooter, devoutly religious yet sexually confused or in denial. Raised under Wahabbism, he became radicalized and harbored violent intentions, at one point even planned an atrocity. But ultimately, Soheil just could not buy into many of the fatwas he was being taught (stoning, killing apostates, etc.). Anyway, I found it interesting to hear what finally brought him​ ​to his senses​.​

    Of course,​ ​there are very​ ​many (pre-enlightened) Soheils​ ​out there, and anyway, how many can we realistically expect to reach and “deprogram” through a modern science education? Considering that even a large percentage of Americans don’t believe in Evolution by Natural Selection (Darwin), I wouldn’t​ ​expect​ ​the likelihood of finding​ ​very many​ ​Soheil’s​ ​in the pack​ ​to be​ ​very high, especially after years of indoctrination from an early age.
    ​ ​
    Which begs the question – are we fated to suffer repeated random mass murders of this nature for the foreseeable future? Are​ ​stronger​ ​firearms​ ​restrictions​ ​really​ ​the​ ​definitive​ ​answer to this​ ​brand of insanity​ ​(after all, their other weapons of choice are​ ​IEDs and suicide vests). Or is it more this particular strain of Wahabbism that must be​ vigorously ​addressed​ ​and revoked​, presumably by the greater Muslim community, if that even makes any sense given the rather large number of sects under the Islamic umbrella, some of which are also hostile towards each other and not necessarily the West?

    This is a generational problem. The terrorists of tomorrow are being grown today, so​ ​any​ ​solution will not be achieved overnight and will require international cooperation​​, especially from those countries and regions where Wahabbism is widely taught and tolerated, if not encouraged.

    Monday, June 20, 2016 at 7:00 pm | Permalink
  11. PatriotSGT wrote:

    To answer your question IK on carrying a firearm, the answer is maybe. It will depend on the circimstance, situation, reading the person carrying the firearm, etc.

    Ralph, you bring up some excellent points and thoughts to ponder. Islam is like Christianity in that they both cone in all shapes abd sizes. Did mainstream Christians condemn the Phelps clan? I seem to remember many who did, and it may have served to put a dent in their recruitment, so perhaps tje same could work for Islam. But the reality is sadly that IMO the violent radical sects will continue for a while. Poor education, lack of future and diminished firward and enlightened thinking will be serious obstacles. The killings will most certainly continue for the foreseable future.

    Monday, June 20, 2016 at 7:38 pm | Permalink
  12. Iron Knee wrote:

    PSgt and Ralph, it certainly doesn’t help that we invaded a Moslem country (Iraq) under false pretenses, resulting in around a half a million Iraqi deaths. I can only imagine what we would do if the situation were reversed, but I do know that we would be calling them “freedom fighters” instead of “terrorists”.

    And thanks Ralph for that link. Very interesting.

    Monday, June 20, 2016 at 9:06 pm | Permalink
  13. Carter Shmeckle wrote:

    “what’s your point?

    Just to tell the truth. I realize this makes me unpopular to partisans on both sides. 🙂

    Do you think we should kick out all Muslims from our country? ”

    A bit of a non-sequitur, don’t you think? Do you think we should expel all people named Donald?

    Monday, June 20, 2016 at 9:16 pm | Permalink
  14. PatriotSGT wrote:

    Well IK, a little over 200 years ago England invaded the US and burned our Capital to the ground. 100 years later we fought side be side in WWI then 20 years later, we became BFFs. So who knows what alliances may develop.

    Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 6:25 am | Permalink
  15. Ralph wrote:

    IK – you’ll get no argument from me about the US often being its own worst enemy when it comes to shortsighted policies and ill-advised military adventures in the Middle East, dating back to the days of the Shah in Iran and even before.

    That said, I’m not sure many Muslims today are referring to ISIS as “freedom fighters”, given the carnage of Muslims (and other infidels) they reportedly leave in their wake, whether in Iraq, Syria, Libya or elsewhere in the region. My understanding is that those who have cheered and welcomed ISIS into their cities and communities, in the hope of righting the injustices of the Shiite gov’t currently installed in Iraq, soon come to realize they have traded one demon for an even worse one. Catch-22, Sharia law style.

    Isn’t it interesting too, that although the US has also imprudently intervened, often brutally, into many Latin American countries over the years, we have not experienced a similar onslaught of religious terrorism emanating from that region of the world? When it comes to religious extremism, Islamic groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS seem to be in a league of their own and we still haven’t figured out how to deal with it. On the contrary, it continues to fragment our politics and sew havoc into our civil society.

    Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 6:54 am | Permalink