Saturday, February 13, 2010

Not The Usual Suspects.

Nearly everyone who goes on a killing spree at an educational institution is a lone male in their teens or twenties. Except the latest massacre seems to have been performed by a married middle aged woman.

This is a reason to be sceptical about the efficiency of profiling in counter terrorism, sure most terrorists fit a certain demographic profile but not all do and if the focus on those that fit the profile is too strong it can easily result in everybody else getting a pass.


Umbongo said...

From you cited report:

"She began to talk about her problems getting tenure in a very forceful and animated way, saying it was unfair," he said, speaking anonymously.

In the Friday afternoon staff meeting, she was told that her appeal had failed against an earlier decision not to grant her tenure.

Police said she then opened fire."

This is not an argument for or against terrorist profiling. This is an example of a very very disappointed - and very unstable - woman pushed over her edge by . . er . . disappointment. It's tragic alright but she murdered those who were apparently directly responsible for her not getting tenure. She didn't blow up the creche next door or the campus bus: she didn't seek an "easy" target of unconnected innocents.

Mark Wadsworth said...

Reminds me of a whole series of Onion-style articles.

Ross said...

" This is an example of a very very disappointed - and very unstable - woman pushed over her edge by . . er . . disappointment. "

Yeah but if you were looking out for who might be pushed over the edge you probably wouldn't worry too much about a 42 year old married woman.

Tarquin said...

Unless she was married to a right-wing blogger.

Anonymous said...

This was real affirmative action.

John Byrnes said...

In early February, Directors of the CIA, FBI and National Intelligence declared that an attack by Al Qaeda in the next 3 to 6 months “is certain!” Leon Panetta, CIA Director announced, “The biggest threat is not so much that we face an attack like 9/11. It is that Al Qaeda is adapting its methods in ways that oftentimes make it difficult to detect.”

Panetta’s statement does not take into account the ability to identify any terrorist whose goal it is to give up their life for a cause. Only when you are observing measurable emerging aggression can you identify a terrorist before they effect their violence.

The Center for Aggression Management discovered 15 years ago that there were two kinds of aggression: adrenaline-driven Primal Aggression and intent-driven Cognitive Aggression. The Primal Aggressor, in the extreme, is “red-faced and ready to explode,” the Cognitive Aggressor (the terrorist) is not. When a person, regardless of the culture, gender, education or position, rises to the level where their goal is to give up their life for a cause, their body looses animation and we see the “thousand-yard stare.” But it is more than this, the whole body and behavior looses animation and this is how we can identify them. The problem is that security and law enforcement are still looking for the Primal Aggressor (red-faced and ready to explode). Of course they are finding it difficult to detect these terrorist; a terrorist is a Cognitive Aggression; they are looking for the wrong person!

As our Government analyzes what went wrong regarding Abdulmatallab’s entrance into the United States, you can be assured that Al Qaeda is also analyzing how their plans went wrong. Who do you think will figure it out first . . . ?

You can

James Higham said...

Young Muslim males, fresh from the Imam, is a pretty reliable demographic though.

TDK said...

Here's a case that make profiling seem more reasonable

Ross said...

TDK- yeah.

Also in fairness I should also note that the increasing evidence that the shooter was actually someone who had committed murder, armed robbery, assault and bomb making in the past does make it look as though she is actually precisely the kind of person who would have been profiled.