Hey, moron, just saying it's 'more effective' does not actually prove your point.
The problem with profiling is, as Schneier points out every time it is mentioned, that any known focus on certain entities means there's now known to be less focus on specific other entities.
This isn't some problem with it being done 'badly', this is how that works. By definition, focus in one area removes focus in other areas. Saying 'we will profile these people' is the same as saying 'We are not going to look as closely at people who are not those people'.
Which, as even utter morons should realize, means that terrorists will either use said people, or at least faking being said people.
Ergo, the only profiling that doesn't reduce security is profiling of things that are unalterable and unforgable.
Behavioral profiling, for example, makes sense...it's very very hard to train people not to act nervously. Ergo, singling people out on the basis of that might make sense. Or might not...it's just a possibility of what might be a good idea, as opposed to profiling on the basis of people wearing red shirts, which would obviously be stupid.
Some other stuff makes sense...for example, terrorists need to be trained, and for various reasons, said training can only happen in a few countries, so we can increase security on this people. Although, like I said, once we start doing that it wouldn't be long until they're using people who we don't know went to those countries. But that, at least, has a moderately high fence to climb, and requires prep work we can catch them in.
Of course, your idea about how profiling works and the idea we can profile 'Muslims' is actually even stupider. We actually could profile everyone under five feet tall, although, duh, terrorists would either buy lifts or just use tall people, so that would be stupid.
But we couldn't profile 'Muslims', even if it wasn't a stupid idea. There's no magical indicator what religion people follow. Hell, they don't even have to 'fake' being another religion. It's like profiling people who 'have a pet cat'...the government has no idea who the hell has a pet cat. I guess we could start registering people for that, but, constitutional questions about having to register your religion aside, I suspect terrorists would just lie.
Although we could profile 'People with obvious external Muslim indicators', which manages to be even stupider. It's like profiling people flying with cat food. Quick, throw your prayer mats in the trash, we have to get on the plane!
I suspect you mean we'd profile Arabs, and have apparently completely forgotten the fact that something like half of all Muslims in the world are non-Arabic. In fact, in the US, Muslims are 26% Arab, 34% South Asian, 24% African-American, and 15% other. Now, in the US, we usually mistake 'South Asian' for Arabic, but even then, that still leaves 40% of all Muslims unaccounted for. (And before you say 'They aren't terrorists', two words: DC Sniper.)
And plenty of Arabs aren't Muslims, and there are other swarthy ethnicities that are often hard to distinguish from Arab. Are you going to start profiling Hindus (Aka, South Asians.) and Hispanics? No? Well, Arab terrorists will use those identities.
In short, profiling is another word for 'Making a list of people who go through less security screening', and profiling 'Muslims' is, well, pretty clear evidence you'd an idiot. Even 'people who look Arabic' would be pretty stupid, but 'Muslim' is, well, so stupid you just need to shut up forever.