0 comment Sunday, October 26, 2014 | admin
On the subject of airline 'security', this editorial acknowledges the concerns many have about the new procedures:
''Led by agitators and sober commentators alike, the public is distressed and angered by the TSA's new procedures, implemented just in time for the Thanksgiving rush. They include imaging that essentially reveals nude portraits of those who pass through the scanners, and highly intrusive pat-downs.''
The first sentence in that quote gives away the writer's tack, which is one that ultimately leads to a justification of the scans and intimate searches, or at minimum, dismisses profiling.
The editorialist mentions the 'underwear bomber' of 2009, and the fact that passengers thwarted his attempt to carry out his plan, but he fails to note that the would-be bomber was on a no-fly list, and was inexplicably allowed to board. Profiling would have made it far less likely that he would have boarded, even if he were not on a no-fly list. He fit one or more categories: his name, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, indicated his likely religion, and he also had a one-way ticket if I remember correctly.
Now, doubt is being cast on whether his bomb would have been powerful enough to bring the plane down, but that is just hair-splitting, as far as I am concerned.
The editorial mentions also the ink-cartridge incident on a cargo plane, but passenger security would not have prevented such incidents.
So no, profiling would not eliminate any and all threats but it would go a long way, and it would simply be the most straightforward and most honest way of confronting the threat.
Profiling, and making it much harder for people from certain countries to immigrate and even to visit would be the best security measures we might have. As long as our government flatly refuses and rules out these common-sense measures, they are not serious about security or about the lives of citizens. Their rigid and dogmatically PC approach shows reckless disregard of the safety of the citizens whose safety they are supposed to defend.
The editorialist uses a cliched argument against profiling, one which we started hearing a few years ago. The claim is made that terrorists are getting smart. Supposedly they know we are scrutinizing airplanes and at least looking with some caution at Moslem travelers (though not profiling, perish the thought), so now they are going to change tactics. I've seen a number of articles over the last few years about how the next tactic will be to use Western White people or non-Moslem people to carry out attacks, or to act as accomplices.
However I can't think of any major terror attack in which White non-Moslems were involved. Can any of you? I think this is just propaganda that is being sown in order to further discredit the efficacy of profiling. The fact is, with any generalization, as with profiling, there will always be the rare exception, but that never invalidates the general rule.
This leads to the larger question of how we regard the terror threat as such. First of all, the so-called 'War on Terror' is a colossal joke, for the reasons I mention above. We are still letting people from terrorist-producing countries and backgrounds enter our country freely. We are still promiscuously open in our immigration policies. Political correctness trumps common sense, and takes precedence over preserving American lives.
However I am aware that many on the right dismiss outright the potential for terrorism. They believe the threat is an invention of our corrupt government, being used as a pretext for stripping us of our liberties and rights in the name of 'security.'
Actually I agree there is likely truth in that skeptical belief. At least, I can see that the government is exploiting the potential for terrorism, using it to justify totalitarian measures which ultimately make us no safer, but leave us less free.
However, unlike some on the right, I don't believe that the Moslems would be our friends were it not for Middle East politics or our pro-Israel policies. I do think we should abstain from taking sides in Middle East disputes. I don't think we should be in Iraq or Afghanistan or any of those countries. But I don't go so far as to say that we and the Moslems could get along just fine if we minded our business. Just look at the history of Europe, and it's clear that Islam has always been at war with White, Western countries, or against historic Christendom -- even when we refuse to see ourselves as at war with them.
And quite apart from that, they are just not compatible with us.
We do not need immigration from those countries. Their interests and ours do not coincide.
On this subject, inevitably someone will recite the rote phrase one hears about all minorities: ''But they're not all like that." Usually that inane statement is followed by some anecdote about a friendly colleague or co-worker. Irrelevant. The fact that less than 100 percent of some group are a direct threat to our lives does not mean that they, or their influence, are desirable in our country. Moslems pose a threat to us in other ways besides clumsy and sometimes successful attempts to kill us. They tend to undermine our culture and our freedoms (complaining about our national and religious symbols displayed in public), demanding special concessions and privileges, and generally displaying a hostile attitude toward us.
And then there are the stories like this one which don't always get national coverage. These things are happening here and there.
I think we need to guard against knee-jerk reactions against our political enemies -- for example, the neocons want to stir up animosity towards Islam so we should turn a blind eye to the threat, or even defend Moslems, as some do. To believe that the neocons 'want us to hate Moslems' should not cause any of us to perversely defend Moslems. They are not our friends. Neither are 'neocons,' of course, but we are stuck with them, for the most part.
But to regard Moslems insouciantly as 'no threat' is not wise.
Whenever we start to find ourselves agreeing with the left, that should give us some pause.
''Led by agitators and sober commentators alike, the public is distressed and angered by the TSA's new procedures, implemented just in time for the Thanksgiving rush. They include imaging that essentially reveals nude portraits of those who pass through the scanners, and highly intrusive pat-downs.''
The first sentence in that quote gives away the writer's tack, which is one that ultimately leads to a justification of the scans and intimate searches, or at minimum, dismisses profiling.
The editorialist mentions the 'underwear bomber' of 2009, and the fact that passengers thwarted his attempt to carry out his plan, but he fails to note that the would-be bomber was on a no-fly list, and was inexplicably allowed to board. Profiling would have made it far less likely that he would have boarded, even if he were not on a no-fly list. He fit one or more categories: his name, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, indicated his likely religion, and he also had a one-way ticket if I remember correctly.
Now, doubt is being cast on whether his bomb would have been powerful enough to bring the plane down, but that is just hair-splitting, as far as I am concerned.
The editorial mentions also the ink-cartridge incident on a cargo plane, but passenger security would not have prevented such incidents.
So no, profiling would not eliminate any and all threats but it would go a long way, and it would simply be the most straightforward and most honest way of confronting the threat.
Profiling, and making it much harder for people from certain countries to immigrate and even to visit would be the best security measures we might have. As long as our government flatly refuses and rules out these common-sense measures, they are not serious about security or about the lives of citizens. Their rigid and dogmatically PC approach shows reckless disregard of the safety of the citizens whose safety they are supposed to defend.
The editorialist uses a cliched argument against profiling, one which we started hearing a few years ago. The claim is made that terrorists are getting smart. Supposedly they know we are scrutinizing airplanes and at least looking with some caution at Moslem travelers (though not profiling, perish the thought), so now they are going to change tactics. I've seen a number of articles over the last few years about how the next tactic will be to use Western White people or non-Moslem people to carry out attacks, or to act as accomplices.
However I can't think of any major terror attack in which White non-Moslems were involved. Can any of you? I think this is just propaganda that is being sown in order to further discredit the efficacy of profiling. The fact is, with any generalization, as with profiling, there will always be the rare exception, but that never invalidates the general rule.
This leads to the larger question of how we regard the terror threat as such. First of all, the so-called 'War on Terror' is a colossal joke, for the reasons I mention above. We are still letting people from terrorist-producing countries and backgrounds enter our country freely. We are still promiscuously open in our immigration policies. Political correctness trumps common sense, and takes precedence over preserving American lives.
However I am aware that many on the right dismiss outright the potential for terrorism. They believe the threat is an invention of our corrupt government, being used as a pretext for stripping us of our liberties and rights in the name of 'security.'
Actually I agree there is likely truth in that skeptical belief. At least, I can see that the government is exploiting the potential for terrorism, using it to justify totalitarian measures which ultimately make us no safer, but leave us less free.
However, unlike some on the right, I don't believe that the Moslems would be our friends were it not for Middle East politics or our pro-Israel policies. I do think we should abstain from taking sides in Middle East disputes. I don't think we should be in Iraq or Afghanistan or any of those countries. But I don't go so far as to say that we and the Moslems could get along just fine if we minded our business. Just look at the history of Europe, and it's clear that Islam has always been at war with White, Western countries, or against historic Christendom -- even when we refuse to see ourselves as at war with them.
And quite apart from that, they are just not compatible with us.
We do not need immigration from those countries. Their interests and ours do not coincide.
On this subject, inevitably someone will recite the rote phrase one hears about all minorities: ''But they're not all like that." Usually that inane statement is followed by some anecdote about a friendly colleague or co-worker. Irrelevant. The fact that less than 100 percent of some group are a direct threat to our lives does not mean that they, or their influence, are desirable in our country. Moslems pose a threat to us in other ways besides clumsy and sometimes successful attempts to kill us. They tend to undermine our culture and our freedoms (complaining about our national and religious symbols displayed in public), demanding special concessions and privileges, and generally displaying a hostile attitude toward us.
And then there are the stories like this one which don't always get national coverage. These things are happening here and there.
I think we need to guard against knee-jerk reactions against our political enemies -- for example, the neocons want to stir up animosity towards Islam so we should turn a blind eye to the threat, or even defend Moslems, as some do. To believe that the neocons 'want us to hate Moslems' should not cause any of us to perversely defend Moslems. They are not our friends. Neither are 'neocons,' of course, but we are stuck with them, for the most part.
But to regard Moslems insouciantly as 'no threat' is not wise.
Whenever we start to find ourselves agreeing with the left, that should give us some pause.
Labels: Big Government, Islam, Political Correctness, Propaganda, Security, War On Terror