TCS Daily


Killing Us Softly

By James H. Joyner - August 11, 2006 12:00 AM

The news that Scotland Yard managed to foil a terrorist attack that would have conceivably dwarfed the 9/11 attacks is not quite as good it might first appear. Certainly, the prevention of "mass murder on an unimaginable scale" is something for which we can be tremendously thankful. Still, our reaction to it has already furthered the terrorists' aims.

The 9/11 attacks directly killed over 3000 people and destroyed billions of dollars worth of property. Naval Postgraduate School political economist Robert Looney recounts the damages:

"Lower Manhattan lost approximately 30 percent of its office space and a number of businesses ceased to exist. Close to 200,000 jobs were destroyed or relocated out of New York City, at least temporarily. The destruction of physical assets was estimated in the national accounts to amount to $14 billion for private businesses, $1.5 billion for state and local government enterprises and $0.7 billion for federal enterprises. Rescue, cleanup and related costs have been estimated to amount to at least $11 billion for a total direct cost of $27.2 billion."

Indirectly, however, the cost was exponentially higher. The intermediate term cost in lost flights would likely have crippled an already-reeling airline industry without multi-million dollar government bailouts. The cost in retrofitting planes with hijack-proof cockpit doors, new baggage inspection regimes, employee background checks, and the like have imposed enormous additional costs. (The industry claims that the doors alone cost $300 million.) That's to say nothing of the tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer money spent ramping up a Department of Homeland Security, taking over airline inspections, and innumerable other actions taken on part of the government to provide at least the illusion of increased safety. Or the hundreds of billions in additional defense spending on the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere.

Given how tremendously wealthy the United States and other Western nations are, however, the most significant cost has been in diminished freedom. I'm not referring so much to debatable counter-terrorism measures like the Patriot Act, increased electronic surveillance on our telephone conversations, and the like. The effect on our liberty of those things is largely theoretical and arguably contributes to the ability of intelligence agencies to foil attacks like the one revealed overnight. No, I'm more concerned about perhaps trivial but much more palpably maddening things like having to arrive two hours early at the airport so that we might stand in long lines to await the indignity of plainly silly searches of our footwear because one idiot tried unsuccessfully to blow up a plane with his sneakers.

Because the latest would-be mass murderers were planning to smuggle liquid explosives aboard in their hand luggage, we will, at least temporarily, no longer be permitted to bring liquids aboard the plane. Indeed, the British are limiting carry-on luggage to a wallet, passport, and medication. Americans are also being advised to add an additional hour to our already early arrival times. While perfectly prudent as counter-terrorism measures, they are horrendous as a business practice for a commercial carrier.

Flying by plane is bad enough owing to decisions by the industry to cram us into ever-smaller planes and existing security measures have ended the days when it made sense to take a plane from, for example, Chattanooga or Montgomery to Atlanta. Pre-9/11, my rule was that a five hour one-way drive made flying preferable if the rates were low enough and my stay short enough. I've since revised that to seven hours. The inability to take carry-on luggage probably bumps it to nine.

While perhaps grumpier than the average citizen, I am hardly alone in this. Wisconsin blogger Sean Hackbarth observes, "The no carry-on restriction and liquid ban better be temporary, or else the airlines will be hurt. One reason some people own a notebook computer is to get work done while in the air. Forcing computers and mobile phones to be stowed in the belly of a plane will have many business travelers saying, 'Air travel is too much of a hassle; I'm going to teleconference.' And that might be just what the Islamists want."

As Hackbarth notes, Amtrack is hardly a viable alternative. Author and business consultant Aaron Brazell suggests another: "The internet provides a vast array of tools for virtual collaboration and though face to face meetings are often nice and useful, they can be replaced by virtual collaborative tools." He enumerates several alternatives. Of course, terrorists and others can employ denial of service attacks and other means of cyber-terrorism to combat these countermeasures. Still, that risk pales in comparison to blown up aircraft or even being stranded for hours at an airport.

Of course, this is small comfort to the airline industry. Barring a decision that slightly increased risk of successful terrorist attacks on passengers is a worthwhile trade-off for markedly increased passenger convenience (which is unlikely for public relations, tort liability, and regulatory reasons) the carriers will have ever-increasing difficulty attracting passengers. Given that the business model of selling seats for less than it costs to fly the plane and trying to make up for it in volume has been so unsuccessful, that may be just as well. Perhaps there will be a return to the old paradigm where flying is mostly reserved to business, cross-country, and international travelers. Or maybe a technological solution will be found to make security checks fast and effective.

Regardless, the terrorists are having a major impact on our society. There have been enough successful attacks (9/11, London, and Madrid to name the most obvious) that each foiled attack still heightens the public fear level, causing a predictable government overreaction. Today's news will certainly cost us a little more freedom and a lot more treasure.

It became a standing joke in the months after 9/11 attacks that, if we did not continue some trivial activity, "Then the terrorists have won." Sadly, it's no joke.

James H. Joyner, Jr., Ph.D. writes about public policy issues at Outside the Beltway.

Categories:

162 Comments

Racial and Religious profiling are the best way to reduce travel times.
The author is absolutely correct to call all of the shoe-searches, tweezer confiscations and liquid-bans ridiculous.

I would suggest that most of these can be done away with by one simple expedients, which will cause plenty of hyperbolic debate and name calling.

We need to start racial and religious profiling. The simple fact is that only two groups have hijacked or bombed planes in the past: Communists and Islamofascists. Given the collapse of communism as a global terrorist force, I think we are not likely to see them hijacking planes very frequently. That leaves Muslims.

It is absolutely true that not all Muslims are terrorists. However, how many terrorist attacks have we seen lately from non-Muslims? The only attack i can think of is the Oklahoma City Bombing, and even in that case, there is some pretty convincing evidence that the bombers got their know-how from the Iraqi military and some other terrorist organizations. (http://www.militaryspot.com/oklahoma-city-bombing.htm, they also have a link to a good book on the subject called The Third Terrorist.)

We are a little touchy about race here in America, and with good reason. But the simple fact is that anybody who appears to be Arabic, Indo/Pakistant, African or Asian is dramatically more likely to be a bomber than a person of Western European ancestry. A 70 year-old white woman is not going to be a suicide bomber, but we face delays and useless searches at the airport because we are too politically correct to search the people who are likely to bomb us.

Yes, the terrorists will probably adapt to this tactic by using people who do not appear to be Arabic, but in the meantime, the rest of us can travel in reasonable time-spans.

Another option is permitting people to carry guns loaded with frangible rounds (rounds that break apart when they hit something hard, they will tear up a human but not the skin of a plane,) on a plane. Arming the good guys is generally a better idea than trying to disarm the bad guys.

100 years from now...
Can we imagine that this sort of misbehavior by sovereign states will be tolerated by the nations of the world or by such a country's own population 100 years from now? Military capitalism no longer makes economic sense. And military adventures by governments with nothing to gain but a few more years in the driver's seat are losing propositions.

Will they stop this nonsense on their own? Some of them will. Might we need to "make" certain states behave? Perhaps.

Should we suffer this inconvience indefinitely? Only if the bad guys don't actually do something unforgivable. However, when we are "sufficiently" provoked some of us will respond appropriately. It is terrible when innocent people are hurt. But will this sort of foolishness still be going on into the next century? Nope. This too shall pass. Will there be a new such form of stupidity? Maybe not!

military capitalism?
It never made economic sense, if fact it has nothing to do with capitalism. Capitalism means private property, free markets, rule of law. If some countries military uses its force to obtain some benefit in some other country, that has nothing to do with capitalism.

What terrorists want
"'Air travel is too much of a hassle; I'm going to teleconference.' And that might be just what the Islamists want."

You know, I'm pretty sure that the terrorists don't have "promote telecommuting" on their agenda. Or if they do, it's probably two lines below "National Sales Tax".

re Publius
Jeez, how can this guy be so un-PC in one small comment? Not only does he advocate the unthinkable of profiling, but he actually goes as far as suggesting that people be allowed to protect themselves. These measures are certain not to be enacted, anymore than my suggestion that we stop fighting terrorists with one armed tied behind our backs.

No Subject
It's not 'un-PC', it's foolish.

If you profile for a certain group of people, you only invite attack from another group - or rather, create holes in your security through which others can crawl.

Security specialist Bruce Schneier's for more eloquent on this than I am:
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/07/profiling.html

WRT arming passengers - that will last until someone is 'accidentally' shot dead by one of your anti-terrorist vigilantes on their way to get an orange juice from the air steward. "Better safe than sorry...d'uh," the redneck moron will no doubt say in justification.

Besides, the last thing most of us want is to fly with a plane full of nutters - screaming babies are bad enough.

Besides, that means that the terrorists can also freely carry such arms on to planes, too, doesn't it? Are you really calling for the arming of terrorists on planes?????

Telecommuting
Promoting telecommuting might not be on their agenda, but making flying prohibitively inconvient might well be. With every bomb plot - successful or not, it doesn't matter - the authorities overreact and introduce a new set of restrictive security regulations. At the far end of this path there won't be such a thing as carry-on luggage (anything can be disguised as a bomb) and if you want to fly you'll have to have a full-body MRI (to make sure you're not carrying surgically implanted explosives) and then clamber aboard the plane in regulation-issue airline PJs and slippers. Of course, this will make flying such a hassle no one will want to do it, which will seriously degrade global connectivity ... which I'm defining here as people actually going to foreign countries, not just having an internet connection.

And anyone who's read Barnett knows this war ultimately comes down to connectivity. By responding the way they are, the governments of the west are playing right into the terrorists' strategic goals.

Luddites-
The terrorists want nothing short of the destruction of Western Civilization. They do not want to replace air travel with teleconference or virtual presence. In fact, our relentless pursuit of technology is the greatest symbol of our civilization (certianly as opposed to theirs), and one mark of our superiority is that, even if they are successful in practically killing one mode of travel in our world, we can simply invent another.

Though many believe that it is virtually impossible for us to beat them (not I), it is actually impossible for them to prevail, so long as we continue to do that one thing they cannot - innovate.

Dietmar
Don't both people when they are coining incoherent compound words that can't even see are self-contradicting.

Huh?
Please explain how "militaristic capitalism" is internally contradictory. I just can't see it. I'll concede that capitalism involves the free exchange of capital, however, adding military or militaristic to that doesn't a priori inhibit the free flow of capital. Indeed, using the military to inhibit or eliminate a threat to the free flow of capital (communists, fascists, islamic-fascists, etc.) would be a supportive use.

It's how nature does it...
"If you profile for a certain group of people, you only invite attack from another group - or rather, create holes in your security through which others can crawl."

If profiling is such a crappy system why does it work so well? Case in point - your immune system. Do you get sick, of course, but 99.999% of the pathogens your body encounters are eliminated (through a form of profiling). Auto-immune disease is what happens when your immune system stops profiling. Current airline security measures are therefore akin to arthritis - painful, debilitating, and totally pointless.

Telecommuting Good
In this age of instant video communication, we should be doing that more anyway. Why fly, consuming thousands of gallons of jet fuel and polluting the atmosphere and putting up with all the pain and inconvenience of travel, when you can just punch up a video link that, with a large screen monitor and mutiple cameras, is almost as good as being there?

Answer
As posited by you, the military would be, indeed a method to supporting free exchange. I think Dietmar (and me) inferred that forest was talking about using the military to obtain resources by force, instead of engaging in international commerce.

I have to admit, forest's use of term seems uncertain upon rereading.

Laptops in Checked Luggage
If TSA wants laptops checked, the airlines are going to have to learn how to handle baggage. The "drop it, then kick it, then shake it to see if it rattles" approach(*) just won't cut it.
*(If it rattles, it's already broken and can be dropped, kicked and shaken again; if it doesn't, you can assume it won't and drop, kick and shake it some more anyway.)

A requirement to check laptops will do more to promote "net meetings" than 3 hour early arrival for your flight and sitting in a "regional jet" for 3 hours next to a weight lifter who hasn't discovered showers and deodorant and can't fit between the armrests. (Yes, I have been there and it ain't pretty!)

Re: It's how nature does it...
Irrelevant analogy. We're talking airports and terrorists here. Human biology is down the corridor and up the stairs.....

A fly in the ointment
Unfortunately for those eager to have racial profiling as a standard airport policy, events have somewhat overtaken them.

Supposing racial profiling was introduced, remind me who again who would be targeted.
Arabs and those from those from, or with a background in, the Indian sub-continent?
Sounds a bit insufficient to me.
What about African Muslims?
And how about Afro-Caribbean converts e.g. the Jamaican-born 7/7 bomber in London.
Or African-Americans? (Chuck D, Flava Flav anyone?)
How about the Hispanic fella from Chicago? (I'd much prefer to see Ricky Martin and arrested for crimes against music!)

So now we've included every black man and woman and Hispanic in Britain and America in addition to the aforementioned groups.
And then there's Filipino and Indonesian Muslims.

So after all that who do we have left? Whites?

Yes, the terrorists will probably adapt to this tactic by using people who do not appear to be Arabic, but in the meantime, the rest of us can travel in reasonable time-spans.

Which brings me to today's revelation - at least one of the suspects of those arrested yesterday was a young, white male convert.
So who does that leave now?
That's right - your 70 year old little old white lady! (If there's any group who does less travelling than the aged please tell me.)
Also, I presume my girlfriend's 69 year old Bengali mother would be legitimately stopped, searched and escorted from the plane - assuming she was allowed on in the first place!

An empty-headed girl from my office remarked earlier today 'why don't they just let white people through?'
This is someone who would count my girlfriend and her sister among her friends. I presume she would see them as two passengers who could be legitimately taken off a plane any more than the blonde-haired bimbo who said it.

we face delays and useless searches at the airport because we are too politically correct to search the people who are likely to bomb us.

If everyone is being searched then it guarantees nothing gets through. It's nothing whatever to do with political correctness. Try telling the young Arab-American interviewed on Sky TV yesterday who'd been escorted off the plane and told to get another flight, presumably because 'his face fits the crime', that PC is Heathrow Airport policy.

A fly in the ointment 2 (with corrections)
Unfortunately for those eager to have racial profiling as a standard airport policy, events have somewhat overtaken them.

Supposing racial profiling was introduced, remind me who again who would be targeted.
Arabs and those from, or with a background in, the Indian sub-continent?
Sounds a bit insufficient to me.
What about African Muslims?
And how about Afro-Caribbean converts e.g. the Jamaican-born 7/7 bomber in London.
Or African-Americans? (Chuck D, Flava Flav anyone?)
How about the Hispanic fella from Chicago? (I'd much prefer to see Ricky Martin arrested for crimes against music!)

So now we've included every black man and woman and Hispanic in Britain and America, in addition to the aforementioned groups.
And then there's Filipino and Indonesian Muslims.

So after all that who do we have left? Whites?

'Yes, the terrorists will probably adapt to this tactic by using people who do not appear to be Arabic, but in the meantime, the rest of us can travel in reasonable time-spans.'

Which brings me to today's revelation - at least one of the suspects of those arrested yesterday was a young, white male convert.
So who does that leave now?
That's right - your 70 year old little old white lady! (If there's any group who does less travelling than the aged please tell me.)
Also, I presume my girlfriend's 69 year old Bengali mother would be legitimately stopped, searched and escorted from the plane - assuming she was allowed on in the first place!

An empty-headed girl from my office remarked earlier today 'why don't they just let white people through?'
This is someone who would count my girlfriend and her sister among her friends. I presume she would see them as two passengers who could be legitimately taken off a plane any more than the blonde-haired bimbo who said it.

we face delays and useless searches at the airport because we are too politically correct to search the people who are likely to bomb us.

If everyone is being searched then it guarantees nothing gets through. It's nothing whatever to do with political correctness. Try telling the young Arab-American interviewed on Sky TV yesterday who'd been escorted off the plane and told to get another flight, presumably because 'his face fits the crime', that PC is Heathrow Airport policy.

How about if we just be realistic and practical.
You make some valid points. Yes, EVERYONE must and should be searched, but a FOCUS must be on anyone of islamic descent.
Especially those sneaky Hungarians as myself.

No Subject
Personally I'm all in favor of telecommuting. Who wants to have to spend two hours a day driving to and from work? My point, though, is that actually physically going places (whether for business, vacation, what have you) has an enourmess benefit in terms of connecting people, one that virtual presense just isn't close to replicating.

There's a big difference between teleconferencing with your colleagues and Japan, and flying over there, having a meeting, and getting smashed with them afterwards.

But like I implied ...
... my girlfriend (and myself as her co-conspirator?) are thrown off the plane while the Hungarian convert blows the plane apart.

You're talking of prioritising police-time but if they only focus on the people of Islamic descent (Arab, Asian, West African, East African, Iranian) then the Richard Reids of this world board the plane ...

Surely a day of hassle at the airport is worth saving the lives of everyone.

What's the alternative?
Do nothing and give the terrorists free reign to kill us?

Why there's overreaction.
The People Demand It.

"Make us safe!" Even ol' mikey moore said that no gun law would have prevented 9/11. A simple box cutter. That's all they needed. Once, they took a pair of 2" mustache scissors from me. Being a Marine, those aren't a weapon to me. The screener held them to his neck... oooooh yea... I see now...

I heard a statement on the news yesterday, something like, "instead of banning items, look for the perpetrators" or something like that. Why not an incentive reward program for the screeners? "If you catch a terrorist..." That way, they will have more of a drive to do their jobs properly, and these jackarses who like to tape tinfoin gun silouettes in their luggage will get slapped.

teleconferencing
Many companies were promoting the idea of teleconferencing long before 9/11.

Clarifying....
I meant to say anyone who is islamic OR an islamic convert which include everyone from A-Z.
I am willing to wait so as not to become fishfood.

Missing the point
Islam isn't a race. It's a religion. So here's a thought: monitor everyone who goes to any mosque, anywhere. Get their picture, their name, their address. And put every last one of them - man, woman, child, arab, black, white or martian - through a fine tooth comb when they board.

The basic principle could be expanded to include any group that seemed likely to get involved in something dangerous. But in the short term, it's muslims and - let's be perfectly frank - only muslims who are a threat. There's no reason, except for misplaced concerns over 'racism' or 'islamophobia', for everyone else to have to jump through endless security hoops just to take a freaking flight.

Already disproven.
The guys in london are said to have no distinguishing "marks", look ordinary and average. Some were 2nd or 3rd generation brits.

Mark, you may want to read something very interesting.
If you want contact me at @yahoo.com
I already told Roy.

we have visitors...
... at my company. Most of yesterday, they went to Sea World.

If you teleconference, you just might stick to business.

Oh, there's innovation.
Look at the road side bombs in Iraq.

Little bombs and our unarmored Hummers...

We up-armored our hummers, they made bigger bombs.

They wired the bombs, we traced the wires to them, sometimes catching them sleeping. They used cell phones, we bought jammers.

It's a race to innovation, actually. But, like in London, we have to catch them in the planning stage.

Precisely
They're not going to sport a large beard and headdress.

I presume you're kidding with the 'monitor every Muslim' line.

That shouldn't pose too much problem for a wannabee terrorist. Just don't go to the mosque!

Agreed
'I meant to say anyone who is islamic OR an islamic convert which include everyone from A-Z.'

We agree then.
If preventing a bomb on a plane means searching everyone just to be sure then so be it. A white convert would have no trouble evading the racial/religious profilers.

The only question that remains is whether the intelligence is any good or whether it's as poor as the last high-profile arrests in London a few weeks back.

No Subject
Not irrelevant at all. The purpose of a virus is to convert you into it. The self-stated purpose of islamic terror is to convert us to Islam. In order to comat that foe, we need to confront it directly, rather than resort to such sclerotic measures as we have now.

No Subject
Ok, good point.

Their aim is conversion?!?
That's news to me!
The Islamists' ideology is so weak and hare-brained that they haven't a hope in hell of being successful in any mass conversion in the West. And they know it!

Your biological analogy DOESN'T stand up to scrutiny either. The body's immune system is akin to 'brand-all' airport racial profiling?

Your freedom has a price
Instead of saying life is priceless and we'll spend everything we have in an attempt to save every last one of us we need a rational view to look at how much response is appropriate. We need to accept that life is not without risk, and that more people will be killed in their cars on the way to the airport then on the airplane itself. I suggest that we put the price we'll pay to save a life as the earnings of the average joe. Everybody is giving up their "life" by having to pay the resulting tax burden for the excess response. A life spent serving the tax monster is not a life at all. The other thing is that airlines and others should be fully funding their own protection, not the general tax payer. That way you can have the super safe, "we profile everyone" airline, and the not as safe "We don't want to hurt anyones feelings" airline. The consumer makes the choice. You think it will make flying expensive? Hey guess what, its a highy profile terrorist target, get used to it.

Oh, yes.
The Prophet Mohammed said to convert or kill all of the infadels (non-muslim/islamics)

Oh no!
Just supposing every Muslim believed that (which they certainly don't!) then they're doing a p***-poor job of it so far!

Oh my
Definately. Wikipedia has a pretty good breakdown of Islam.

A couple of days ago, the American muslims bristled and were offended at the name "islamofacists" and "islamic extremists". I say, Screw 'Em! They haven't done ANYTHING to change or update islam, just whined, "we're good people!" Get out there and prove it! Get a new, modern day prophet. Mohammed was insane.

Oh my oh my!
Definitely what?

When did Chuck D stick his twopenneth in? Or did you mean SOME Muslims?

How does someone who isn't a terrorist or isn't a (political) Islamist prove they aren't? Pass a written exam?
Bit difficult to prove a negative isn't it? Or is that the point?

This is the story of Islam
The fact of the matter is, even when Islam loses, it wins --- thanks to the definitions supplied by Mohammed (may pig entrials be upon him). If they win a battle, it is because of the graces of Allah (an Arab pagan moon god). If they lose, it is because they were not faithful enough to Islam and it is because of their sins that Allah did not give them his graces. One way or the other Islam wins because these people never look at what they do other than through the idea that they must just be "better" Muslims.

Remember, there is NO morality in Islam. Whatever is deemed good for Islam is defined by them as good. And the Q'uran, being a book of war and intolerance (along with the Haddith) gives Muslims the right to kill anyone they perceive as against Islam or aiding and abetting those that Muslims perceive as against Islam --- that means your mothers, your wives, your children -- and YOU. To a Muslim, there are no "civilians."

Before this thing with the airlines went down, there was a poll done in the UK. It asked whether or not the Muslims thought of themselves as Muslims first or UK citizens first. 90% said that they were Muslims first. Meaning they are enemies of the UK government because Islam says that there is no legitimate government but an Islamic government.

A study last year showed that 85% - 90% of Muslims worldwide justify homicide bombing under almost any condition. The rest surveyed probably abstained.

Let's face it gang --- if 9/11 and what happened yesterday doesn't bring down the wrath of the free world (defined as states not predominantly Islamic in nature) on Islam, then get ready to bow down to Mecca five times a day, be a slave or die. There is NO peaceful coexistence with Islam --- the Muslims won't allow it.

oh me oh my
(we're running out of those quotes)

I think actions will speak louder than words. Other than just saying "we don't want to be discriminated against, we're good people, peaceful people..." Prove it. Get out there and preach to the muslims in the mid-east. Rally the peace-minded against the fascists, and show them that there is no room for them in modern islam. If they are peaceful, make islam about paece, not jihad.

Look at Lybia. Kadaffi, right after 9/11, denounced all WMD's, terrorists, and even has helped capture and turn over the islamofacists.

Calling a spade a spade
With the now undeniable link between terrorism and teleconferencing/telecommuting, we need a name for it. My suggestions are "terrorconferencing" and "terrorcommuting".

Let us never again deny (or ever forget) the powerful link between the terror and telecommunications industries that is now driving our economy. This new dynamic makes the old military industrial complex look like a shy puppy.

No Subject
Actions being not actively supporting terrorists and not carrying out terrorist actions?
Proving someone is peaceful means not carrying out violent acts.
How do my Muslim friends 'get out there and preach to the muslims in the mid-east'? They've got better things to do.
My Irish grandmother would no more get into a lecturn at Sunday mass and preach against the IRA to prove her peaceful credentials. So why should my friends do it? They KNOW they're not violent so they don't have to prove it to anyone.

Go after the headcases!

Re: Lybia - the Algerians have been doing that for far longer.

Nationalizing Airport Security was the first mistake.
Security of the airplanes should have just been left up to the airlines.

Airlines that didn't enhance security (or at least perceived security) would most likely have lost business. Airlines that found ways to increase security and keep the line moving would reap the rewards.

I don't understand why this should be a federal issue. I guarantee there will be no more plane hijackings in the US where the plane is used as a missile. The thought that 'if we just do what they say we'll be alright' is so far gone people are not going to just sit there while 3-4 terrorists try to break into a cockpit.

No Subject
"If you profile for a certain group of people, you only invite attack from another group - or rather, create holes in your security through which others can crawl."

BULL$H!T.

It's because of people like you that we have these problems. There is one group and only one group of people in the world today trying to blow up airliners: Muslims. Profiling Muslims apart from everyone else is the ONLY way to deal with this. The only airline on earth that is essentially immune from attack by terrorists on the plane itself is El Al. Israel requires that Muslims check in separately up to four hours before a flight so that they can be intensively scrutinized and searched. Is it fair? Hell no! But we didn't create this problem, the Islamists did. If the world's Muslims want to point fingers over the necessity for profiling they have to look inward.

As for us in the West, we have to tell the lefty idiots to STFU and start implementing some security based on common sense a 5 year old could grasp.

Disproved
"If you profile for a certain group of people, you only invite attack from another group - or rather, create holes in your security through which others can crawl."

BULL$H!T."

And what does a Muslim look like?

Nothing like at least one of those arrested yesterday?
Rooney's point has already been proved. And several times previously - Hispanic bloke from Chicago, Richard Reid, Jamaican convert 7/7 bomber, American Taliban recruit.

Now profile who again?

As Tom Daschle said
"If you want to proffesionalize, you must federalize."

Mostly, the reason why Democrats insisted on federalizing airport security was this would ensure that govt unions got more jobs. Airlines, especially the non-unionized ones, were unlikely to hire union workers for these jobs.

Fleeing Freedom in Fear
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

-- Author unknown

Benjamin Franklin, Publisher
An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania, 1759

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin

Oh! Woe is me, woe is me - - - get a life
What horro! Business travelers who aren't allowed to take their laptops onboard may choose to make do with a teleconference. And what a horror it is to have to arrive 2 hours early for a flight. And, oh, how terrible, terrible, terrible it is to have to check your overnight bag containing the forbidden Oil of Olay and then wait 20 minutes for your baggage at the other end.

Perhaps we deserve to lose some battles in this war with the Mohammedan nuts. Maybe after we suffer some real reverses we will wake up and recognize that this isn't OZ, it's still Kansas after all.



fear...
The Lebanese have admitted to being fearful of Hezbullah, and have only recently been able to speak out against them because of Israel's attacks.

They're fearful, and need a voice to rally them, and support when they do rally.

TCS Daily Archives