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
0 comment Thursday, September 4, 2014 | admin
Behold the face of Political Correctness: Willie Rae, Chief Constable of the Strathclyde Police.During his statement, after the Glasgow attack, in which he allowed that the Airport incident 'was terrorism', he proceeded to go into the obligatory song-and-dance about how the authorities would not tolerate any kind of 'harassment' of the local 'minority communities' and that any such behavior would be dealt with.
How typical of our weakling Western authorities now. It's a ritual that whenever any attack is made on citizens, even one in which lives are lost and people are injured and maimed, we have to be subjected to such lectures by our authorities, who obviously think that preserving the feelings of 'minority communities' is their chief mission. What it means is that we would rather see innocent lives sacrificed and people horribly killed and maimed rather than 'offend' any of our 'minority communities.' It's beginning to look as though our authorities, who are ostensibly charged with providing for our safety and security, instead see themselves as charged with protecting 'minority communities' from the rest of us.
I remember that Willie Rae's London counterpart, 'Sir' Ian Blair, made a disgustingly dhimmi-like speech just after the 7/7 London bombings in 2005. He said something about how the word violence and the word Islam do not belong together, and that terrorism is the work of merely a tiny minority of extremists, etc. etc. You know how the speech goes.
Our Western leaders are saying implicitly that they will see many of their own citizens dead rather than risk being mean to Moslems. So 'profiling' and exclusion of Mohammedans is not even to be discussed or considered or thought. 'Fairness' and tolerance and openness take precedence over life and survival itself.
Is this not the definition of derangement? Or is it just craven cowardice? Or is it ideological tunnel vision?
And as if Willie Rae was not bad enough, here we have Alex Salmond, Scotland's 'first minister' lecturing the Scottish people:
Mr Salmond appealed for calm, following the attack at Glasgow Airport, while stressing that steps were being taken to keep people safe.
He also told BBC Scotland that individuals, not communities, were responsible for their actions.
[...]
"No community in Scotland should feel threatened or under suspicion because of this incident."
Community relations in Scotland, he said, were strong, adding: "They've withstood a number of pressures over recent years and they'll withstand this pressure as well." '
Translation: the multicultural agenda will go on as before, regardless of its cost to human life, to civil liberties, and to the quality of life in Scotland or elsewhere. And the people will have to like it and go along with it, or else. You can be sure that any Scottish or British citizen who offends the protected Moslems will be dealt with much more harshly than any apprehended terror suspects, who will be treated with kid gloves and protected by various liberal organizations like Amnesty International.
And here in our country, it is not much better; whenever any terror plot is uncovered, the media are full of stories about the 'backlash' that never happens, and our elected officials lecture us in the same way that the PC-addled officials in the UK lecture their people. Something is really, seriously wrong with this picture.
The news coverage on Fox, CNN, and MSNBC follow the usual PC template, with inane questions from the anchors and the usual talking heads providing their useless commentary. The British correspondent Simon Marks, when asked about immigration and terror, immediately got up on his high horse and said that the 7/7 attacks were done by British citizens, and that therefore they had nothing to do with immigration.. How obtuse can one get? Of course the bombers
may have been technically 'British nationals', to use the very legalistic term, but in no sense were they part of the historic British nation and the historic British people. The very fact of their alien origins and their alien belief system is the source of their desire to do harm to British people. But this must not be acknowledged; it might offend other such 'British nationals' who nonetheless hate their adopted country and culture.
One side note: Alex Salmond, quoted above, is the leader of the Scottish National Party. Now, traditionally Scottish nationalists (like Irish and Welsh nationalists in their countries) championed their right to be free of English domination. These nationalist parties denounce the wrongs of the Sassenachs dating back hundreds of years. So why on earth do each and all of these parties support multiculturalism and the presence of Moslems and other foreign cultures in their midst? Wasn't the idea for Scotland to be under Scottish control, with a fully Scottish culture and way of life? If not, then what does nationalism mean, or what use is it? The English at their worst could never be as inimical to Scotland (or Ireland or Wales) than the Moslems and other such unassimilable alien peoples.
I noticed that some paleocons have applauded the rise of the SNP and the other nationalist parties, oblivious to the fact that these faux nationalists support the leftist, multicult agenda, and hence are no friends of true nationalism.
A 'nationalism' that stands for political correctness and multicult ideas is not what is needed in any Western country now, in these days of mass immigration, demographic warfare, and jihad.
What is needed, first of all, is a containment of Islam within its own sphere. The adnerents of that cult have proven time and again that they are both unwilling and incapable of living peaceably among non-Moslems.
Labels: Illegal Immigration, Nationalism, Political Correctness, Terrorism, War On Terror
0 comment Tuesday, June 17, 2014 | admin
As the story of Saddam Hussein's execution by hanging is discussed across the Internet, there are extremes of emotion; as usual, the leftists are crying crocodile tears over the hanging of Saddam; they see him as a wronged victim, and the United States as the villain. On the opposite side of the emotional scale, we have the neocons, and the dittohead Republicans rejoicing and cheering Saddam's death, just as they were jubilant when Saddam was captured just over 3 years ago.
I find myself with no strong emotions on the event; I am disgusted by the lefties who defend Saddam or any other criminal, and I am not at all clear on why they sympathize so strongly with Saddam. He could hardly be classified as a fellow leftist, but because he is 'Other', from the Moslem world, they idealize him as a victim. And in their world, America is always evil, always wrong, and their fellow Americans invariably the enemy. They truly are people 'without a country' deracinated, disembodied people whose only feeling of affinity is with those who share their political delusions. I still maintain that many of them would take up arms against their fellow Americans in a heartbeat, such is the depth of their loathing.
Still, I can't say I feel elation at Saddam's death; as far as I can tell, he is fairly small potatoes in the larger scheme of things, and although his death is payment for the crimes he committed, I don't think it will have much effect on the situation in Iraq. I don't see his death as a 'milestone' in Iraq.
Apparently, Con Coughlin, writing in the Telegraph, does not think so, either:
Hanging Saddam won't bring peace to Iraq
This was a man whose maniacal policies -- whether launching unnecessary wars with Iran and Kuwait or the genocidal purges of his own people that were a perennial feature of Iraqi politics -- resulted in the deaths of up to one million people during the 35 years he dominated the nation.
[...]Even if support for Saddam is confined to his immediate family and criminal associates from Tikrit, there remains a substantial constituency among Iraq's disfranchised Sunni community who still fondly remember the hegemony they enjoyed over the country during his rule. The remnants of the old Ba'ath party, who have proved remarkably proficient at sustaining the vicious and unrelenting insurgency that has done so much to undermine the coalition's attempts to restore order to Iraq, have even gone so far as to threaten reprisals against those responsible for his demise.
[...]Removing Saddam from the scene might satisfy the Iraqi people's bloodlust, but it will have precious little bearing on the determination of rival Sunni and Shia Muslim groups to achieve their political goals through violence, rather than through the constitutional, democratic framework that the coalition has worked so hard to establish.
The best that can be hoped for from Saddam's demise is that it gives the Iraqi government the confidence to tackle and defeat the insurgency in a manner that has hitherto been lacking. Its failure to do so would have potentially disastrous consequences for both the future of Iraq and the region.''
Coughlin, at the conclusion, speaks of the possibility that, should the Iraqi government fail to quell the 'insurgency', civil war may be the result.
My problem with Coughlin's take is simply this: how bad does the situation in Iraq have to be before the label 'civil war' will be applied to the violence there? The neocons and the talk-radio fans have insisted that the situation there does not amount to a 'civil war', and that the term is only used by the 'Bush-bashers' and the lying MSM. So when will it cross the line and become a civil war? They keep raising the bar.
But I do agree with Coughlin that the removal of Saddam will not substantially change things.
The Iraqi 'insurgency' as it is euphemistically called, seems to have a life of its own, and is part of the wider turmoil which Islam is creating worldwide.
Will the execution of Saddam increase the violence against our troops in Iraq? I certainly hope it does not, but only time will tell. And how can we know for certain whether any increased violence or attacks are a retaliation for the execution, given the prevalence of the violence in Iraq?
And another concern for us in the West is the possibility of retaliation within our home countries. All along we have heard that 'we have to fight them in Iraq so we don't have to fight them here', and all the while, we are opening the gates to more and more Moslem immigrants. Doing so almost guarantees that we will have to fight them here, and indeed Islamic aggression is occurring here, in the sense that they are actively pursuing their agenda to Islamize our countries. The incidents I blogged about yesterday testify to an Islam that is on the march, pushing into Christendom as surely as in the days when our European ancestors had to drive them back at Tours or Lepanto or Vienna. Of course not all war involves bloodshed; the Islamic plan utilizes legal means and propaganda and deception, and ominously for us, they use our traditions of openness and hospitality against us. They use our institutions, our legal and legislative systems, in their war on the West.
Meanwhile many of us are lulled by the 'War on Terror' into the belief that because we are 'fighting them in Iraq' we are standing strong and resisting. Meanwhile, here in our country, we are welcoming Islam in, and giving them a foothold in our military, our government, our media. We are handing them the keys to our country.
Our efforts, if we are to survive and not fall under Islamic domination, must be refocused to defeating them domestically. The war in Iraq is, in a sense, a diversion.
Dictators and strongmen come and go, and although Saddam is now gone, how many other Islamic leaders, even more dangerous, still are at large? And why are our 'borders' still wide open?
I find myself with no strong emotions on the event; I am disgusted by the lefties who defend Saddam or any other criminal, and I am not at all clear on why they sympathize so strongly with Saddam. He could hardly be classified as a fellow leftist, but because he is 'Other', from the Moslem world, they idealize him as a victim. And in their world, America is always evil, always wrong, and their fellow Americans invariably the enemy. They truly are people 'without a country' deracinated, disembodied people whose only feeling of affinity is with those who share their political delusions. I still maintain that many of them would take up arms against their fellow Americans in a heartbeat, such is the depth of their loathing.
Still, I can't say I feel elation at Saddam's death; as far as I can tell, he is fairly small potatoes in the larger scheme of things, and although his death is payment for the crimes he committed, I don't think it will have much effect on the situation in Iraq. I don't see his death as a 'milestone' in Iraq.
Apparently, Con Coughlin, writing in the Telegraph, does not think so, either:
Hanging Saddam won't bring peace to Iraq
This was a man whose maniacal policies -- whether launching unnecessary wars with Iran and Kuwait or the genocidal purges of his own people that were a perennial feature of Iraqi politics -- resulted in the deaths of up to one million people during the 35 years he dominated the nation.
[...]Even if support for Saddam is confined to his immediate family and criminal associates from Tikrit, there remains a substantial constituency among Iraq's disfranchised Sunni community who still fondly remember the hegemony they enjoyed over the country during his rule. The remnants of the old Ba'ath party, who have proved remarkably proficient at sustaining the vicious and unrelenting insurgency that has done so much to undermine the coalition's attempts to restore order to Iraq, have even gone so far as to threaten reprisals against those responsible for his demise.
[...]Removing Saddam from the scene might satisfy the Iraqi people's bloodlust, but it will have precious little bearing on the determination of rival Sunni and Shia Muslim groups to achieve their political goals through violence, rather than through the constitutional, democratic framework that the coalition has worked so hard to establish.
The best that can be hoped for from Saddam's demise is that it gives the Iraqi government the confidence to tackle and defeat the insurgency in a manner that has hitherto been lacking. Its failure to do so would have potentially disastrous consequences for both the future of Iraq and the region.''
Coughlin, at the conclusion, speaks of the possibility that, should the Iraqi government fail to quell the 'insurgency', civil war may be the result.
My problem with Coughlin's take is simply this: how bad does the situation in Iraq have to be before the label 'civil war' will be applied to the violence there? The neocons and the talk-radio fans have insisted that the situation there does not amount to a 'civil war', and that the term is only used by the 'Bush-bashers' and the lying MSM. So when will it cross the line and become a civil war? They keep raising the bar.
But I do agree with Coughlin that the removal of Saddam will not substantially change things.
The Iraqi 'insurgency' as it is euphemistically called, seems to have a life of its own, and is part of the wider turmoil which Islam is creating worldwide.
Will the execution of Saddam increase the violence against our troops in Iraq? I certainly hope it does not, but only time will tell. And how can we know for certain whether any increased violence or attacks are a retaliation for the execution, given the prevalence of the violence in Iraq?
And another concern for us in the West is the possibility of retaliation within our home countries. All along we have heard that 'we have to fight them in Iraq so we don't have to fight them here', and all the while, we are opening the gates to more and more Moslem immigrants. Doing so almost guarantees that we will have to fight them here, and indeed Islamic aggression is occurring here, in the sense that they are actively pursuing their agenda to Islamize our countries. The incidents I blogged about yesterday testify to an Islam that is on the march, pushing into Christendom as surely as in the days when our European ancestors had to drive them back at Tours or Lepanto or Vienna. Of course not all war involves bloodshed; the Islamic plan utilizes legal means and propaganda and deception, and ominously for us, they use our traditions of openness and hospitality against us. They use our institutions, our legal and legislative systems, in their war on the West.
Meanwhile many of us are lulled by the 'War on Terror' into the belief that because we are 'fighting them in Iraq' we are standing strong and resisting. Meanwhile, here in our country, we are welcoming Islam in, and giving them a foothold in our military, our government, our media. We are handing them the keys to our country.
Our efforts, if we are to survive and not fall under Islamic domination, must be refocused to defeating them domestically. The war in Iraq is, in a sense, a diversion.
Dictators and strongmen come and go, and although Saddam is now gone, how many other Islamic leaders, even more dangerous, still are at large? And why are our 'borders' still wide open?
Labels: Islam, Saddam, War On Terror
0 comment Sunday, June 1, 2014 | admin
An American blogger says she was sexually assaulted during the airport ''security'' screening.
The article, posted on an Australian news site, drew many comments, some of them very stupid and some more reasonable. I am always dumbfounded by people of whatever nationality who think there is absolutely nothing wrong with being subjected to intimate body searches or ''naked scanners'' just to board a plane.
One comment says if we get to our destinations safely, then it's worth it. I surely hope Americans won't be so ovine and passive as to simply shrug their shoulders and acquiesce to this. I hear a lot of people saying they just won't fly (which has been my resolve for a while now) but I wonder if they'll get over that and decide they 'need' to fly after all.
One cliche that we have heard ever since 9/12/2001 is that ''if we change our lives and habits just because of terrorists, then they will have won. So let's just do everything we did before 9/11 and defy the terrorists.''
That kind of thinking exasperates me. Who started that silly meme, anyway? As far as I can discern, the terrorists are not just looking to 'change our way of life' or 'destroy our freedom', they are trying to kill people, specifically Americans and infidels. If we are wise enough not to take chances, and avoid high-risk situations, the enemy will not have won; we will have won by eluding the traps set for us. We win by staying alive and foiling their designs, not by "defiantly" dying in an avoidable attack.
I don't believe they ''hate us for our freedom''. They hate us just because of who and what we are and what we represent.
So if we 'defy' them by taking risks that are usually avoidable, and we end up dead because of it, I would think that THEN, they would have won.
So why take unnecessary risks?
I don't believe these intrusive and probably unconstitutional measures make us one bit safer. They are not really intended to make us safer. If our government wanted to protect us, it would have closed the borders on 9/11 and radically tightened our immigration laws, excluding people from terrorist-producing nations. Profile. That's the best way of making us safer. And fix our wide-open borders and our lax visa regulations.
Some have declared that these new security regulations are 'theater' to make the gullible public believe that our government is protecting us. I doubt that; I think most people are past believing that our government has our interests at heart, or that they are really serious about actually performing the main duty of government -- to protect our lives and safety, particularly from foreign invasion or attack. No, I think it's simply a show of power, and an attempt to get us more accustomed to just shuffling along obediently, and giving up more of our rights and liberties in the name of 'security.'
Personally, when I have to travel, I will choose some other method than flying.
The article, posted on an Australian news site, drew many comments, some of them very stupid and some more reasonable. I am always dumbfounded by people of whatever nationality who think there is absolutely nothing wrong with being subjected to intimate body searches or ''naked scanners'' just to board a plane.
One comment says if we get to our destinations safely, then it's worth it. I surely hope Americans won't be so ovine and passive as to simply shrug their shoulders and acquiesce to this. I hear a lot of people saying they just won't fly (which has been my resolve for a while now) but I wonder if they'll get over that and decide they 'need' to fly after all.
One cliche that we have heard ever since 9/12/2001 is that ''if we change our lives and habits just because of terrorists, then they will have won. So let's just do everything we did before 9/11 and defy the terrorists.''
That kind of thinking exasperates me. Who started that silly meme, anyway? As far as I can discern, the terrorists are not just looking to 'change our way of life' or 'destroy our freedom', they are trying to kill people, specifically Americans and infidels. If we are wise enough not to take chances, and avoid high-risk situations, the enemy will not have won; we will have won by eluding the traps set for us. We win by staying alive and foiling their designs, not by "defiantly" dying in an avoidable attack.
I don't believe they ''hate us for our freedom''. They hate us just because of who and what we are and what we represent.
So if we 'defy' them by taking risks that are usually avoidable, and we end up dead because of it, I would think that THEN, they would have won.
So why take unnecessary risks?
I don't believe these intrusive and probably unconstitutional measures make us one bit safer. They are not really intended to make us safer. If our government wanted to protect us, it would have closed the borders on 9/11 and radically tightened our immigration laws, excluding people from terrorist-producing nations. Profile. That's the best way of making us safer. And fix our wide-open borders and our lax visa regulations.
Some have declared that these new security regulations are 'theater' to make the gullible public believe that our government is protecting us. I doubt that; I think most people are past believing that our government has our interests at heart, or that they are really serious about actually performing the main duty of government -- to protect our lives and safety, particularly from foreign invasion or attack. No, I think it's simply a show of power, and an attempt to get us more accustomed to just shuffling along obediently, and giving up more of our rights and liberties in the name of 'security.'
Personally, when I have to travel, I will choose some other method than flying.
Labels: Big Government, Liberty, Privacy, Terrorism, War On Terror