At first glance: The profiling of Terrorists

On September 11^th, of 2001, the actions of the terrorist group, Al Qaeda, devastated America and shocked the world. Two planes hijacked by the terrorists were crashed into the Twin Towers killing thousands of people, Americans and peoples of other nationality from one of 80 different countries according to Michael Eidenmuller on “AmericanRhetoric.com” in his translation of George W. Bush’s speech regarding 9/11. In the speech following the attack given by former President George Bush, he addresses not only the America and its countrymen, but is addressing all countries across the world. He calls for the peoples to come together as one. Eidenmuller translates “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists,” (4). George W. Bush, with support from such statement, has used the global ties from the attack on our nation to split the world. All nations that do not wish to pick a side seemingly have no other choice than to be considered a threat in the mind of George W. Bush. With the social status of race heavily expressed in the speech given by Bush, he justifies the support of America and justifies the hatred and prejudice against the Islamic Al Qaeda.

One example of speech that reflects the racial aspect of Bush’s speech is the quote “An attack on one is an attack on all. The civilized world is rallying to America’s side… Terror, unanswered, can not only bring down building, it can threaten the stability of legitimate governments,” (Eidenmuller 4). He calls Americans civilized, and Americans being a race of its own, while the terrorists being a separate race. What George W. Bush says allows you to picture the Americans from the terrorists, and by that I mean you can physically imagine the Americans, either white or black, and separately you can imagine the terrorists who are brown skinned. This is because of the implications that Bush has involved with his speech. George W. Bush frequently uses the word Islam and Muslims. He says this to show that we have identified the group of people that had done the heinous act against the United States of America, along with specifically identifying them as “Al Qaeda,” (Eidenmuller 3). The only trouble is that when Bush continuously repeats the terms Islam and Muslim, he brings attention to them in a negative manner even though he had no intent of doing so. By continuously saying those words, you continue to relate that race of people to Al Qaeda and relate them to terrorist activity. Then at this point any person that is seen that is Muslim is suspected of being a terrorist and commits acts of terror. With this ideal in play in the speech, it plays a larger role in differentiating the role of race in being American versus being Muslim, and further yet, you relate being Muslim and the skin color of brown with terrorism in general. When you picture American, you envision white primarily and black too. But the last thing you relate to being American is brown, or, being Muslim. This is due to the portrayal of terrorists in writings or speeches such as President Bush’s and the fact that the Muslim people don’t relate that well to Americans due to color or even religion, making the racial profile of Muslims become grouped together as one bad egg at first glance.

http://www.shoebat.com/blog/2012/01/25/identifying-terrorist-links-is-now-racist/

In a blog titled, “Identifying Terrorist links is now racist,” on the Walid Shoeboat Blog page, the discussion about racial profiling and whether it is truly a bad thing or not arises. In a quote about an airlines pilot, it is said that “The pilot, a Muslim, was judged a security risk because of his close links to two alleged extremists suspected of ‘planning to use an aircraft as part of a hostile or terrorist act’.” The pilot seemingly had links to alleged extremists, but the best question would be what kind of ties. The trouble the portrayal of people in the media is too vague. The man had links to two extremists sure, but that link could be something distant like the pilot is second cousins with one of the men but does not keep in touch. On the other hand it could be that two or all of them are best friends and the suspect was truly in cahoots with the extremists. Without specifics, people believe what they want to, and that is the point when people’s individual levels of racial ideals play in. People who follow media could only be getting half of the story but because they have heard that the terrorists that bombed the United States were Muslim, they have a racially influenced belief in the situation. Not all Muslims are terrorists, and not all terrorists are Muslim either, but the more they are used together in writing or in speech, even if it’s to try and tell that not all Muslims should be seen as terrorists, it still puts the thought of Muslim terrorists into the minds of people and they have been influenced into relating and molding the two separate aspects into a stereotype. Another quote from the Walid Shoeboat Blog site is “A British airline pilot arrested over an alleged terrorist plot is claiming racial and religious discrimination after losing his job.” This shows what could possibly be the other side of the argument. This states that the pilot was fired over an alleged terrorist plot, and if his involvement is verified and he is truly engaging in terrorist activities, then the stereotype truly was correct this time.

The Walid Shoeboat Blog claims that “Identifying terrorists as terrorists will one day be racist. With terrorism being related more and more related to simply being Muslim because of media and worried mind, people may be hesitant at first when they see a brown skinned person, but without racism and without stereotyping, you would have any idea regarding what a terrorist may look like. The terrorists in the world should be hated for the killings of innocent people and should face punishment, but unfortunately, the same stigma’s we use to identify the heinous murderers also complicates the lives of innocent people who share the same race as the terrorist.