First, please read the article linked to below, then note the discussion about it. The other party's words are not included, but I do give the context of my own comments. The purpose of this CGNS post is simply to present MY words to you, my humble readers and followers.
-
You will find that the article, though making good points, ignores political reality to attack any efforts to combat terrorism. The article itself is a "smoke screen" to Leftist efforts to effect an American defeat in the War on Terror.
-
The article: "Smoke Screening," by Charles C. Mann: http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2011/12/tsa-insanity-201112
-
My comments in the discussion below:
-
What the government should be doing is focusing on the terrorists when they are planning their plots. "That's how the British caught the liquid bombers," Schneier says. "They never got anywhere near the plane. That's what you want—not catching them at the last minute as they try to board the flight."
-
This and the Israeli profiling method would require actions not acceptable to libertarian and liberal critics. Intrusive domestic intelligence and singling out sheetheads would be denounced by the same people who say the sort of physical security denounced in the article at the airport is evil and bad. They need to make up their minds what they want.
-
Since 9/11, Islamic terrorists have killed just 17 people on American soil, all but four of them victims of an army major turned fanatic who shot fellow soldiers in a rampage at Fort Hood. (The other four were killed by lone-wolf assassins.) During that same period, 200 times as many Americans drowned in their bathtubs. Still more were killed by driving their cars into deer.
-
The point of terrorism is not body counts, per se, but rather--get this--TERROR! Ten thousand people slipping in bathtubs doesn't terrorize. Planes crashing into buildings does. Economic impact is also a consideration. The economic cost of deer collisions comes nowhere near that caused by destruction of installations like the WTC.
-
The best memorial to the victims of 9/11, in Schneier's view, would be to forget most of the "lessons" of 9/11.
-
Of course, because 9/11 was not engineered by Osama bin Laden, who didn't exist before he was illegally killed by the ZOG conspiracy that actually did the whole thing, which didn't really happen. There is no terrorist threat.
-
============================
-
(REGARDING A COMMENT THAT THE WRITER'S POINT WAS THAT WE SPENT A LOT OF MONEY ON SECURITY AND HAVE LITTLE TO SHOW FOR IT BESIDES INCONVENIENCE)
-
I appreciate that. What is the fellow's alternative?
-
Not only has the actual threat from terror been exaggerated, they say, but the great bulk of the post-9/11 measures to contain it are little more than what Schneier mocks as "security theater"...
-
"Exaggerated"? Better exaggerated than ignored, and irregardless (yes, I know), it points to a denial attitude. As for the "theater," libertarians and liberals would allow little else, and it helped get people traveling again. The theater is hardly desirable, but blame the people.
-
There is plenty of room for criticism of what has been done. I have done so myself. My issue always is that some use a right to "criticize" as cover for undercutting efforts, and some readers will, irregardless of the intent, be demoralized in the war effort by such assertions if not done with an eye toward improving performance and respecting what is done. There is a reason we used to hang people who undercut war efforts.
-
-
============================
-
(REGARDING A COMMENT THAT AIRLINE PASSENGERS SHOULD BE ARMED, AS THE WRITER SAYS, "No big plane will ever be taken that way again, because the passengers will fight back".)
-
-
But to do that would require further changes in public sentiment. That's so often the problem--the PEOPLE! The people won't go for the ultimate answer (for example, Bush would have been tried as a war criminal if he'd opened up on Afghanistan with nukes), leaving authorities with a choice between ignoring and/or denying the threat, and partial-measures which draw criticism for mixed results (often from the same people blocking ultimate answers). Yes, it's "politics" causing the problem, and we will have such politics so long we have democracy.
-
As I said, I appreciate the point about inefficiency of current anti-hijacking efforts. The problem is when criticism fuels the denial side and undercuts the ability to do anything--"Well, since those techniques don't work, we should just forget 9/11 and move on." People do think that way. A bit of false optimism coupled with constructive criticism and viable alternatives (or arguing for politically inviable alternatives and attempting to change the politics) goes a long way.
