From: Employee at MILVEHCO (milveh@dslextreme.com)
Date: Wed Aug 10 2005 - 17:36:43 PDT
John, until they start coming at us with different profile types, logic
says we ought to go with what we know for sure using the last 4 decades of
(terrorist) acts to develope the profile. Rather than to lump everyone
into the "possible" terrorist category with the purely random AP searches,
we ought to do logical, scientific screening using known terrorists
profiles until such time the situation changes or until we have the luxury
of unlimited resources. But, for now, we have to focus what we have and
use it where it will likely produce the most results. That's threat
assessment (profiling) and to me thats just common sense.
Jack
J. Forster
> You missed the point of my earlier post.
>
> The most dedicated of the Jihadis (and likely the MOST dangerous) are
> learning
> to defeat the profiles established for them by doing things apparently
> inconsistent with being a devout Muslim, according to the TV reports about
> them
> on PBS 'Now' (??).. .
>
> -John
>
>
>
> Larry Tighe wrote:
>
>> Be it "Statistical Probablility" or "Profiling" it's gotta be done. The
>> test below answers the obvious. I hope
>> this can end the OT discussion of "self-destructive behaviour" called
>> PC.
>>
>> HISTORY TEST [snip]
>
>
>
>
> ===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
> To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
> To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Oct 28 2005 - 23:25:27 PDT