Why I am a Nationalist

I have always refused to discuss politics but this one issue has been nagging at me because it seems to be so misunderstood and I want to provide my own take of the situation. Many people seem to think because I travel a lot, have a great love for certain other countries (especially India) and because I would consider spending the winter in a number of places in the world (India, Mexico, Nicaragua, etc.) and because I would even consider living in another country, perhaps, for the rest of my life, that I must be totally into multiculturalism and a blurring of borders.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I am a strong nationalist, I want strong borders, and I want a strong American culture. Shocked? How could this be? Pat Brown? Didn't you marry a Jamaican, don't you have a closet full of Indian clothing and are a huge fan of Bollywood, aren't you learning Hindi and Spanish, haven't you been to Mexico five times and are planning a sixth trip in October? Didn't I see you in hijab in Egypt? WTF?

I will tell you why I want the United States to be the United States: because I want India to be India and I want Jamaica to be Jamaica and I want Mexico to be Mexico and Egypt to be Egypt. I visit these countries BECAUSE they are countries that are different from my own, because they are unique - with their own languages and culture - because they are NOT The United States of America. I want them to protect their way of life; I don't want to see Mexico overrun with Americans buying up land and refusing to learn Spanish (which is already happening and is pretty repulsive). I believe anyone moving to another country and culture has a duty to become part of it and, if one is not willing to do that, please stay where you are.

My father moved to the United States from Germany. He learned to speak English and did so fluently for the rest of his life. He married an American and raised three children to be Americans. He always considered himself an American with a German background. And here is what is important. He didn't considered himself a German-American, putting the German first. He considered himself an American with a German history. Hence, he acted as an American with a few private German observances: we had German pancakes on occasion, he made snitzel now and then, we had German Christmas cookies and marzipan at holiday time. Sometimes he spoke German with his mother and when all the relatives who were Americans with a German heritage got together, there were sometimes rememberances of the past, of the home they were born in and lived for a period of their lives.

My ex-husband moved to the US when he was fifteen. He and all of his brothers and sisters became US citizens. All of them act like Americans albeit with a bit of an accent (the oldest two), a whole lot of Jamaican food made in their homes, and reggae music that they play in their cars. All of them have melted into American society; they don't run around wearing dreads and driving cars with Jamaican flags stuck on them. They raised their children to be Americans, not separatists with a hatred for the country they were born in. They love the United States and so do their children.

If I move to India or Mexico and become a citizen, guess what I will do? I will speak Hindi (if I am in the northern part of India) or whatever language is the language of the area of India I live or I will speak Spanish if I live in Mexico. I will wear the clothes that people around me wear and I will enjoy the music they play and I will eat the food they eat. I will care about the country that I am living in. I will become an Indian with a United States heritage or a Mexican with a United States heritage. In my home, I may enjoy some American pastimes, music, and food, and I may have some friends from the US I enjoy spending time with because of our shared past, but I won't hang with them exclusively and refuse to bother with my new fellow countrymen; I won't parade down the street with an American flag and hate on the country I have moved to.

If I move to Mexico, I wouldn't want to see a bunch of drug-using homeless Americans coming across the border in droves, taking jobs from Mexicans,  and bringing American style crime and behaviors to the country, overwhelming their culture and resources. And, guess what? I don't want illegal Mexicans coming across the border in droves and extending their country into ours. I don't mind legal immigrants who share with us the culture of their land of birth (restaurants, music, books, celebrations, etc) but I don't want to find myself in a town where I, an American born citizen, am unwelcome and poorly treated because my new neighbors don't like the people or culture they have invaded.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to have your own identity as an individual or as a country. Change will always happen but it should be the kind of change that happens slowly over time and becomes the new normal. But, if one allows uncontrolled immigration or allows massive numbers of illegal immigrants to flood the country, you will have a huge collection of people who are not the least bit interested in become a true citizen of that country and they will not adapt to the culture and leave the majority of theirs behind. It is the duty of a country to protect its way of life and safety of its citizens and this is what a smart government does when it works to protect its borders and set reasonable immigration policies.

A number of European countries are in trouble because they allowed uncontrolled immigration of young Muslim men into their country who have failed to assimilate and appreciate the country they are presently living in. They have brought cultural values in conflict with their new homeland and gathered together in intense subcultures where they are cultivating hatred against the citizens around them.

In the US, we have not seen this problem with Hindu immigrants from India because they have adapted to their new country and their values are similar enough not to set them in conflict with their nonHindu neighbors. In the past, a slow trickle of fairly educated Muslims from relatively open Muslim societies into our country has also allowed for a reasonable assimilation, but the recent increase in Muslims from countries who have radical Muslim governments and cultures, young men not escaping from a world they disagree with, but young men seeking financial refuge and also bringing an extremely conservative Islamic culture with them, one which does not allow them to coexist well with a modern America, this influx is creating a dangerous powder keg which will one day explode as it has in Europe. We have enough trouble with disaffected all-American youth choosing to commit mass murders for the attention they get in the media and the thrill of making a name for themselves, so we sure don't need to add yet more young people who are disaffected due to homelands in chaos, a difficult transition to a new country, and a mindset and culture that do not meld well with the society we have in the United States; this leads to a whole other level of violence via mass murder and terrorism.

Our earlier limited immigration of Mexicans and Central Americans also allowed for these new arrivals to learn English and become part of North America. However, the excess flood over our borders of people fleeing economic hardship and political and drug violence is generating large communities of Spanish only residents and an increase in violent gangs and cartel activities. We need to stop this massive influx and work to regulate who comes in and how many come in at rates which allow new immigrants to be a boon to our country and not a detriment.

We ARE a country of immigrants and growth and I welcome people from all places and all religions as long as they are coming here to become Americans, proud Americans, loving Americans - future citizens who will stand up for our way of life because this is the country they want to be a part of, not a country they want to change or destroy.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
June 13, 2016

MO, not Motive is the Key to Labeling the Murder of Multiple Victims and the Key to Stopping These Crimes

The term "motive" has caused a lot of problems in crime solving, court cases, and in the public arena of understanding crime.

First, let me define "motive" properly. Motive is the reason someone THINKS he he has committed a crime or someone else THINKS he has has committed a crime. In reality, there is often little evidence that the claimed "motive" is the true reason for the crime and, in reality, it really doesn't matter a damn to the dead people or their families.

The problem with the definition of "motive" is that humans often do not understand themselves, others, or the complexity of why we do things and that we might claim one motive when another is totally the reason for our action or, as is often true, there are multiple motives for any action and focusing on just one is not giving the full story.

Take a action which is a non-crime: why does Pat Brown go on television? Is her motive the one she gives - a desire to educate the public about crime and criminals - or is it the motive some others claim is the truth - that Pat Brown is a narcissist who likes the limelight? Or that she wants to advertise her books? That she wants to make money? That she likes to ride in limos to the studio? Or that she likes the free hairstyle and makeup? Is she seeking truth or fame? Or, is it possible that she has multiple motives, some possibly stronger than others, that make up her choice to appear on television?

And killers? How do we KNOW their motive? Are they angry at the person they kill? Or was it just fun? Or did they want notoriety? Or was it a robbery gone bad? Or a supposed hate crime? If a killer says he shot a bunch of people down because they were African-American is this necessarily the truth? Or did he know he would get more publicity for saying so? Or the support of racists while in prison? Or did it just sound good after his plan to shoot up the white church next door fell through because the church went on a picnic and the black church next door was just a back up plan?

If a Muslim mass murderer yells "Allahu Akbar" does this mean the motive for his killing is truly to kill nonMuslims? Or is he just pissed off at his workmates? Or mad that his wife left him? Or does he simply want to justify in his own mind his desire to kill a lot of people and attain media fame?

Truth is, searching for an absolute motive is a waste of time. What IS important is determining how the crime was committed, who supported the killer (if anyone) and what we need to do to stop it from happening again. So far, there are a number of issues we need to address:

In a particular crime, we need to determine MO (modus operandi), how he did it.

1) Did he commit the crime all on his own? Then it is mass murder and we need to address the cause of mass murder in general and find any encouragers of the crime (the media) and stop them.

2) Did he commit the crime with the help of an organized terrorist cell? Then it is terrorism and we need to address the cause of terrorism in general and find any accomplices to the crime (other terrorists) and stop them.

Then we need to examine more deeply:

1) The increase of psychopathy
2) The increase of mass murder
3) The increase of terrorist attacks

There are real factors behind the increase of these three things: an environment that encourages the development of psychopathy, an environment that encourages the choice of mass murder as a tool of revenge and self-fulfillment, and an environment that encourages the choice of terrorist attacks to make a political statement.

These three factors should cause us to focus on how we raise our children, why we allow the media to make mass murderers famous, and how to stop the spread of radical Islam, especially within our own country (and that could be the US, the U.K., Malaysia, Nigeria, etc.)

While we are wasting time caring about some psychopath's excuse for why he committed his heinous crime, we could be using our time to stop these crimes from happening.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
June 12 2016

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Mass Murderer or Terrorist - An Important Distinction

This post comes with no pictures and no links. I simply want to get across the point that a mass murderer is different than a terrorist and we shouldn't confuse the labels.

Mass murderer - a disgruntled, angry psychopath or borderline personality disordered individual who hates everyone in the world and picks a group to target that a)  justifies his crime, b) is a fishbowl he feels comfortable committing the crime in,  and c) gets a lot of media publicity for himself.

Terrorist -  a disgruntled, angry psychopath or borderline personality disordered individual who is a) in the employ of a terrorist organization who selects the target for political reasons and the impact of the terrorist attack on the political issue, b) is sent on an assignment to kill, and c) gets a lot of media publicity for the cause.

Mislabeling mass murderers as terrorists encourages misdirected animosity between groups of people when the anger should be only targeted toward the individual and the development of psychopathy in society.

Examples of mass murder:

Oklahoma City - mass murderers 
Columbine - mass murderers
Virginia Tech - mass murderer
Fort Hood - mass murderer
Norway - mass murderer
Aurora, Colorado - mass murderer
Wisconsin Sikh temple - mass murderer


Examples of terrorism:

Ku Klux Klan - terrorism by Christian fanatics
9/11 - terrorism by Muslim fanatics
1985 bombing of Air India plane (Canada) -   terrorism by Sikh fanatics
2007 Ajmer Dargah blast  - terrorism believed to be enacted by Hindu fanatics


Let's put the proper label on the proper psychopath: it will help us not foment hatred for no reason and also help us understand what exact issues we should be focusing on to prevent future attacks. If we are dealing with mass murder, we need to focus on the development of psychopaths in middle class America and if we are dealing with terrorism we need to focus on where and why terrorists organizations are developing, how they are being funded, and how they are recruiting. For both types of killings, we need to know how to identify the individuals and their intent to kill before the crime is enacted and to develop the best methods to prevent and stop such killings.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

August 5, 2012

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Mass Murderer or Terrorist?

There is a new link to a blog making its way around the Internet which claims Pat Brown excuses criminality and is a big leftist.

This claim always make me laugh. I have no issues with people being liberal or conservative, or even far to the right or left. I may have a rousing discussion with them but I can still like a person with diametrically opposing views. I, myself, am a conservative, a constitutionalist, pro-Second Amendment, pro-carry, and pro-death penalty. The concept that I am a big liberal/anti-gun/soft on crime started in two places. Both came from the far right over the issues of gun control and terrorism. Some pro-gun folk on a particular site got all bent out of shape over a television commentary I did on men who kill their girlfriends. I pointed out that if you are a woman and you note these three things in your fellow, you might want to run the other way: a very controlling personality, an obsession with violence, and a massive gun collection. These pro-gun folks only paid attention to the last part and saw red; Pat Brown is saying all men with a gun collection are violent psychopaths who kill their wives and girlfriends.

Of course, this is not true. I know many men with gun collections, but they don't have continual violent ideation nor are they control freaks who push their women around. What is funnier is that I own two weapons and my children own weapons, more than one weapon each. I am pro-carry. But, for years, it has been claimed I am a big liberal who wants to take everyone's guns away!

The other far right group that decided I was a big leftist went nuts after I labeled the Ft. Hood Shooter, Nidal Malik Hasan, a mass murderer rather than a terrorist. One site claims that I refused to even clarify my position, that I have some nerve to not call him a terrorist, even though I detailed three times over in the video they posted of me on FOX news my exact definitions of a mass murderer and a terrorist and why I think Hasan is the former and not the latter. I will explain it here again so somewhere on the Internet it is clear what I really believe and why.

A terrorist is someone who works with a terrorist organization over a period of time, is bred to be a terrorist and instructed on what to do by the organization. Then, the terrorist carries out the terrorist attack on behalf of the terrorist organization and its ideology. Finally, the attack itself, although the terrorist might have psychopathological issues of his own, is committed in order to forward a political ideology and coerce a government or country into making concessions that benefit the group's agenda.

A mass murderer is psychopath who has issues in his own life and wants to do something that will show the world it should have paid more attention to him, that he is someone important, and now they will never forget him. They want to go out with a bang and make all the newspapers. They may create a political ideology to justify their big day but they have not been trained nor are they working in concert with a terrorist organization.

9/11 was a terrorist attack; this is clear. So are other terrorist attacks; for example, places that blow up in India and Egypt are terrorist attacks; Mumbai, Jaipur, Hyderabad, Delhi in India, and Sharm-el-Sheik and Luxor in Egypt. Most of the Indian attacks are over who should own Kashmir - Pakistan or India (or neither) - and are committed by members of Lashkar-i-Taiba (LET). Some of the attacks are over Bangladesh. Egypt has a variety of factions trying to force the government to act toward Israel or the US in the way that terrorist group wishes. They are all politically motivated and usually involve lengthy planning and groups of operatives. The 1983 bombing of the Marine Barracks in Beirut, Lebanon was a terrorist attack aimed at getting the United States to go home. It worked. The 2004 Madrid train bombings were carried out to influence the upcoming election and to get Spain to pull out of Iraq. It worked. Most of these terrorist attacks cited are radical Islamist groups, but not all terrorist attacks are committed by al-Qaeda or their cells or Islamic radicals. There are and have been terror groups in India (some are radical Hindus or Radical Christians), Sri Lanka, Africa, South America, Asia and elsewhere in the world where other political aims or religious aims are or were at play.

In the United States we have also been subject to terrorist attacks. Jose Padilla was convicted in 2005 of being an enemy combatant of Pakistan for trying to bring a "dirty bomb" into the country. The Virginia "Jihad" Network consisting of eleven men with ties to al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and Lashkar-i-Taiba was brought down in 2003. And in 2010, Faisal Shahzad was charged with attempting to blow up a bomb in Times Square in New York City. He had ties to the Pakistan Taliban from whom it is believed he received training.

These are just some of the attacks targeting the United States that are true terrorist attacks. I call these perpetrators "terrorists" because they are truly working with a terrorist group.

Now, we have a new issue on the horizon, what we call "homegrown" terrorists. These are usually psychopaths who join up with a terrorist network because they want to feel important; similar to someone joining a cult. I don't call Hasan a homegrown terrorist because he did not actually join a group and work with them.

Mass murderers just want their day in the sun and to take revenge on society, the society that didn't give them respect. The Columbine Mass Murders were committed by two psychopathic teenage boys who wanted to mow down the more popular kids, especially the girls who they didn't think would date them, and the wanted get their name in the papers. Cho of Virgina Tech fame had similar "Wannabe a Rockstar/Killer" ideation.

But, Oklahoma City Bomber, Timothy McVeigh, and Norwegian mass murderer, Anders Behring Breivik, were older and had achieved "midlife crisis" (the two major mass murder groups are teens who feel adult life offers nothing to live for and those who have become frustrated that they have not reached the level of success they wanted as adults and give up); these two men felt society had ignored them long enough. They developed a political ideology of White Superiority that propelled them to their big day in the sun and made them heroes for a cause (if only in their own minds). While they may have reached out on occasion to certain groups, gone to their websites, and read their books, they were not working with any terrorist cell. This was their big day and that big day was really about nothing but themselves. They were losers who wanted to become antiheroes and they succeeded.

Nidal Hasan didn't even work as hard as McVeigh or Breivik on any intricately developed ideology. He had moments of getting all radical Islamic when he was feeling down, but, in the end, he wanted to kill his workmates and get back at the Army he had served for half his life, the organization he felt didn't appreciate him enough. Yes, he reached out right before the mass murder to radical Islamists to give himself a better justification for his killing his fellow servicemen and he yelled "Allah Akhbar" before he pulled the trigger, but this does not him a terrorist make. He had the traits and behaviors of a mass murderer and if al-Qaeda is cheering and claiming he committed a terrorist act in the name of Allah, so be it; sometimes mass murdering psychopaths help out the terrorists.

Why do I insist on the importance between this distinction of mass murderer and terrorist? Certainly not, as this website claims, because I want to "excuse criminality" or that I want play down any radical Muslim connection to terrorist attacks. I have often labeled certain attacks terrorist attacks and if they are conducted by groups who adhere to a radical Islamic philosophy, I state this as well, and, I am hardly excusing criminality because I recommend the death penalty for either a mass murderer or a terrorist. My purpose in laying out the differences between the mass murderer and the terrorist is so that we know what to watch for and what traits and behaviors to recognize, so we can intervene before the terrorist or mass murderer strikes. This is the kind of work I do in anti-terrorism training funded by Homeland Security and TSA and in my psychopathology training for law enforcement.

Psychopathy, mass murder, and terrorism are increasing in our world. If we cannot find a way to talk about these subjects rationally, we will not be able to address and prevent these mass homicides from occurring.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiing Topic of the Day: Mass Murderer or Terrorist?

I recently was a guest of FOX and Friends and The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer and when I made the statement that Fort Hood shooter Major Nidal Malik Hasan was not a terrorist, but a psychopathic mass murderer in midlife crisis, I got some angry email.

Ms. Brown...I just saw your appearance on Fox an Friends....and was blown away at your disregard that Islam played no part in this massacre.Have you done even a 5 minute search on this person? Wake up lady. Do a little research before you make a fool of yourself on national TV again.

Dorothy Rabinowitz woud agree with this emailer that I am either a fool or I am in fear of being politically incorrect.

To those not terrorized by fear of offending Muslim sensitivities, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's motive was instantly clear: It was an act of terrorism by a man with a record of expressing virulent, anti-American, pro-jihadist sentiments. All were conspicuous signs of danger his Army superiors chose to ignore.

But I will stand my ground and I hope, for the sake of true understanding people will understand my thinking. Anyone who has seen me speak on television or has read my blogs will know I have never worried about being politically correct. I aim to speak the truth as I see it.

First of all, we must define "terrorist." Under the United States Law Code: the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents; the term “terrorist group” means any group, or which has significant subgroups which practice, international terrorism.

By this definition, Hasan does not even begin to qualify as a terrorist.

1) He was not a member of a terrorist group. Yes, he may have listened to what a terrorist group had to say, he may have been in the vicinity of another who might have been a member of a terrorist group, and he may have emailed a terrorist group. He might have even chatted with terrorists on the Internet in a chat room. But, none of these behaviors make him a member of a terrorist group any more than a psychopath a church member because he has gone to a Sunday service a few times and chatted with a pastor online.

2) He was not carrying out any mission organized by a terrorist group. He was a lone gunman.

3) He was not politically motivated. "What?" you say? The guy was spouting Islamic jihadist garbage before and during the shooting. This is very true but that what he says is not necessarily his motive. Like all midlife crisis psychopathic mass murderers, he must justify his rage at society for his failure; Hasan has decided to portray himself as a good Muslim conducting jihad and thereby casting himself as a hero and not a loser scumbag who kills his coworkers because he is ticked he is failing in his professional and personal life. He is no different than Jason Rodriguez, the man who attempted the mass murder of his coworkers in Orlando, Florida the following day; he was disgruntled and angry and wanted to show everyone he wasn't a weakling they could kick around any more.

I know what a terrorist attack looks like. My son was in Jaipur the very day the LeT (Pakistan's terrorist organization, Lashkar-e-Taiba) hit the tourist area with bombs attached to bicycles. Eighty people were killed. Thankfully, my son didn't listen to his mother who told him to go to that very area that day to sightsee before he started work the next day. Instead, he was watching videos in his room while the bombs blew up the city center.

I have traveled to India and been at the very spots that terrorists have hit. I was in Connought Place in Delhi, in front of the Taj Hotel in Mumbai, and in the shoppiing area in Hyderabad, all locations that were targeted by terrorist groups who successfully carried out their missions.. Each one was a concerted effort by a Islamic extremist terrorist organizations, either LeT out of Pakistan's Kashmir region or HuJI (Harkat ul-Jihad-al-Islami) out of Bangladesh.

Hasan belonged to no group. He may have self-radicalized himself in violent Islamic ideology but he still was not part of an organized terrorist cell. He was an angry man, who happened to be Muslim, who took out his bitterness on his fellow soldiers.

Now, was there a problem with failure on the army's part to identify Hasan as a threat? You bet there was. He was clearly decompensating, falling apart, being more and more angry and bizarre. His increasingly concerning rantings supporting suicide bombers and growing pro-Islamic jihadist sympathies should have been a huge warning sign that he might go off and do what he did. It was at this stage that fear of being politcally incorrect cost lives. The Army should have booted Hasan because he was a danger to his fellow soldiers whether or not he was a Muslim.

Clearly American needs to be vigilant in fighting terrorism and preventing and dismantling terrorist cells in this country. We need to do something about people entering our country who despise it and its people. We need to stop those of any religion who encourage and condone violence against our citizens. And if Major Hasan had been the member of a terrorist cell and been their "soldier" and not ours, I would not hesitate to state we had a Muslim perpetrating a terrorist attack against America.

But unless more information comes in linking this sorry excuse for a human being to a terrorist group, we still have a lone psychopath pretending he was a terrorist so he could get his day in the sun.

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Flying while Muslim

Nine Muslims got tossed off a plane for making what they claim were innocuous comments about plane safety. Already people are writing on blogs claiming this is racial profiling and that Muslims are suffering the same pain African-Americans have experienced in "Driving while black". In order to assess the level of unfairness being leveled at a particular group of people for no reason other than that they are members of a particular race, religion, or subculture, we need to first define racial profiling.

To be called racial profiling, one must essentially view race as the only profiling issue and the issue of race must be entirely arbitrary to the situation. For example, suppose a bomb blows up at a shopping center in Prince George's County, Maryland. One third of the shoppers are Black, one third are White, and one third are Hispanic. Now, if police review the security tapes and send investigators out to interview only the black shoppers, then we have an issue of racial profiling.

Now, let's go to another mall. This mall is celebrating Black History Day and the location in which it sits is in a predominately black area of town. That day, a bomb goes off in the mall. Security tapes show the mall has entirely black shoppers except for this one squirrelly white guy sneaking around a corner with a shaved head and tattoos down both arms. Now, if you were a police detective, who would you be looking at as the possible bomber? Now you can be as politically correct as you want, but practicality says, check out that white dude. It is not just that he is white that one pays extra attention to him. The police would be unlikely to blink if that one white person were a blonde woman in high heels holding the hand of a mixed race child or a white man with his arm around his black girlfriend. But, a guy in an all-black mall on Black History Day who looks like a white supremacist AND a bomb goes off, makes it impossible not to focus on him as a top suspect. Likewise, if there is only one black guy seen at a KKK rally when a bomb goes off, it would be hard not to check him out.

"Driving while black" often is an excuse for folks acting squirrelly WHILE driving and being black rather than JUST driving and being black. Police must profile in the course of their work; they must make split decisions on who to pull over and check out. They work off a profile of what they experience in their work. Believe me, having done ride alongs with my cop daughter, it isn't just blacks that get profiled. Check out that white guy lurking behind that business in a black area of town. He was not ignored by police; they thought, "What's he up to?" and they checked him out. Sure enough, he was trying to burglarize a black man's business. But, they profiled him not only because he was white in a black area, but because he was lurking in an odd way, and because he was somewhat unkempt in the manner of a drug user looking for some way to support his habit. If you are black. dress like a thug, and jump into a vehicle that matches the style drug users like and you look like a drug dealer AND you act in some squirrelly fashion, you might get pulled over (often after the cop runs your plate and finds out something is suspicious about it).

So, now to flying while Muslim. This group looked VERY Muslim with the men with the long beards and the women with their heads covered. They were in a location where they will stand out to those around them (like the white guy at the black mall or behind the black business). Their behavior was possibly squirrelly. Now I know these Muslim passengers claim they said nothing concerning, just something about the safest place to sit on a plane and something about the engine jets right outside the window. All of this might have just been normal chit-chat. However, we have not yet heard the other side of the story, what the a passenger or two overheard; perhaps what was said was a little more scary that what is claimed.

Regardless, everyone knows clearly by now that one doesn't shout fire in a theatre or anything close to it. A white boy who loves rap and hangs with all blacks may be able to say Nigga when with his friends but he best not say that while he is alone in a black club without them. Even as a white middle-aged female I know enough not to lunge for something under my seat while a police officer is standing outside my vehicle waiting for me to produce my license. I also know that when I travel in predominantly Muslim areas like Kashmir and Egypt that covering my arms and head is both wise and respectful. It makes those around me comfortable (even if I disagree with the philosophy behind it). The United States is a country that is not terribly in sync with Islamic views, especially of women, and certain Muslim attire makes many feel extremely wary.

These were intelligent Muslims. The spokesman for the group is a doctor and his brother is a lawyer. He knows darn well that it is simply not wise to make comments that can be misconstrued as threatening on a plane when dressed in the manner of a particular group of people who have members who like to crash planes and participate in suicide missions.

Yes, this may have been a perfectly nice group of people who made a silly comment. Well, you pay for making silly comments if you know that those silly comments shouldn't be made at that location. You learned a lesson of what not to do in that public venue. Sorry. Your bad.

If it turns out they made no suspicious comments at all, then the onus of what happened falls on the other passengers, but let's see what their side of the story is before we accuse them of being racists as opposed to concerned citizens worried about the safety of themselves and others on the plane. I look forward to more clarity before judging one group or the other.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: A Prayer for Jaipur

I just got back from a wonderful three weeks in India. I flew to Chennai in the south where I stayed with my son, David, for a few days. Then we went by train to Mysore, the city of sandalwood. We visited Bandipur, where the tigers and elephants roam and we were lucky the park had reopened in time for our trip. It had been shut down for quite a while until the murderous bandit, Veerapan, was hunted down and shot. Then we flew to Mumbai, the city of Bollywood, filmi stars, and exuberant energy.

Next, we flew to Kashmir and spent a couple of idyllic days (in spite of the heavy security) on beautiful Dal Lake and took a horseback ride into the Himalayas. Finally, we flew to New Delhi where we spent the last five days of our trip, where I did my presentation, and where the hosts of the event took great care of us, showing us around, helping us shop, and taking out for dinner. Of course, we spent one day over in Agra visiting the beautiful Taj Mahal and the dazzling Red Fort.

Then, I flew home and my son went on to his volunteer job in Jaipur.

Yes, Jaipur, where the seven bomb blasts just tore up the center of the Pink City, this lovely peaceful city which is the tourism capital of India.

It took me eight attempts to reach David by phone but finally the call went through and he picked up. What a relief it was to hear his voice. He told me he was all right and that he had been in his apartment at the time the bombs went off.

I have been in three locations in recent years where terrorists attacked but luckily I had come and gone before they did. London, England; Hyderabad, India, and Sharm-el-Sheik, Egypt. It is always an odd feeling to realize that where you had were standing, innocent people were torn apart. I also live in Washington DC where the 911 plane crash into the Pentagon and shut down the city and where the DC snipers terrified everyone into dancing at the gas station pumps afraid to be a still target. I remember the palpable fear in the air and the many people who retreated into their houses, trying to decrease their odds of becoming a statistic. I remember how residents of the area stopped going downtown to DC to eat out and going to the theatre. I recall a number of restaurants when out of business because they couldn't sustain the loss of business.

I worry about my son but I also worry about the state of affairs in Jaipur and India. Terrorism takes lives but it also takes peace of mind and livelihoods. Will tourists now shun this lovely city and the rest of India because of the fear of terrorism? Will businesses fail and men become unable to put food on the table of their families?

I hope India goes after these bastards (and I would use another words but another one doesn't come to mind) with all they have got. I hope that the rest of the world doesn't decide to avoid doing business in India and that tourists don't decide to avoid the country as a travel destination.

My heart goes out to the residents of Jaipur. As for my son, I hope he continues to enjoy the hospitality of the area and the work he is doing. I hope he doesn't let terrorism dictate to him what he should do or where he should be.

Most of all, I hope we stop terrorism before it destroys the world we live in.


Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Suicide Bombers are Social Outcasts

A new U.S. military study has determined that social outcasts are recruited by al-Qaida to become suicide bombers. One could say this is a rather "duh" conclusion because any time you have a school shooter in the U.S. you can be fairly well assured he is not fitting in well and making a great success of himself.

However, while I believe school shooters are America's version of suicide bombers, many people believe that the mentality of the suicide bomber has a deeper religious issue or a deeper historical motivation causing him to commit this violent and suicidal act. This study shows that this is likely not true at all and the only difference between the school shooter in American and the suicide bomber of the Middle East is that the school shooter is "recruited" by the anti-life community of the Internet/gaming/gore/death metal community to deliver their message and the suicide bomber is directly recruited by a more recognized and organized specific group.

What is important to learn from this study is that social outcasts are targets of those who want to attack society in an ongoing and continuous war. Suicide bombers are not just recruited once, but again and again as al-Qaida continues to attempt to destroy the West's influence - politically, economically, and socially - on their ,and the anti-life community continues to drum their message into the heads of our youth that their society is useless and needs to be destroyed as well.

Mass murderers who commit suicide in the process come in many forms but they all come out of lives of personal failure and are easy pickings for terrorist organizations of the domestic or foreign sort. In order to stop both kinds, we need to destroy the networks that recruit them and also ameliorate the societal conditions that cause these young folk to eventually turn agaisnt the human race and want to destroy them.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: The Assassination of Benazir Bhutto

It has been a while since any news item has brought me to tears, but today we have lost a great world leader to Islamic extremists and terrorism. Benazir Bhutto, ex prime minister of Pakistan and first female leader of an Islamic nation, was assassinated today during a campaign rally in Rawalpindi,leaving the best hope for democracy and reasonable thinking dead in Pakistan. Bhutto represented the kind of idealism, courage, and commitment we in the United States rarely see in our own leaders and citizens. Bhutto returned to Pakistan fully aware of the danger awaiting her and she was willing, for the sake of her people and the ideals of a democratic society, to put her life on the line.

Benazir Bhutto did not lead a life free of controversy and one cannot claim she was a perfect leader, but she offered the best hope for common sense and decency in a part of the world plagued by terrorism and oppressive mindsets. Peace, fair elections, democracy, equality for women - all of these concepts have been trampled on today and I cannot help but feel the whole world will suffer because of this horrific act of hostility against a woman who sought to make her country and the world a better place to live in.

May the people of Pakistan come out of this tragedy with a combined strength to fight back against extremism and not let the loss of Benazir Bhutto be the death knell of all freedom and decency, inshallah.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown