Is it wrong to profile when a specific minority makes up a majority of terrorist attacks? The UN seems to think so:
The United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva has passed a resolution calling on states not to resort to racial, ethnic or religious profiling while countering terrorism.
First, lets define terrorism. The American Heritage Dictionary defines "terrorism" as The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."
In other words, any use of violence, or the threat of violence, to promote an agenda is considered an act of terrorism.
According to the list of known religiously-based terrorist groups at Wikipedia, 28 out of a total of 32* religious terrorist organizations share the Islamic ideology. That's a whopping 87.5%! Keep in mind, that total does not include the portion of terrorist acts by that majority. But a visit to www.thereligionofpeace.com or simply scanning daily newspapers indicates that 87.5% are responsible for nearly all acts of terrorism currently being committed around the world.
Let's take a look at the FBI's Most Wanted Terrorists list:
Hmm, see any common characteristics among this group of men? If you said "young, Muslim males", you are a bigot and a racist. Go sit in a corner until you learn to be more tolerant.
I ask again, is it wrong to profile when a specific minority makes up a majority of terrorist attacks?
* 4 groups were excluded because, while all have been involved with violence at one point or another, only 32 systematically promotes or participates in the use of violence. The removed 4 have only one or two isolated acts of violence and/or intimidation that do not appear to be precipitated by group ideology.