LET me ask you something. Is it a rational decision for a secular-Christian society to admit thousands of Muslims into its midst? Comparable movements of Christians into Muslim societies are not permitted, so what essential, non-negotiable, mutually respected right is involved?
The question is especially apposite, because we now know the consequences for every single European society which has admitted large numbers of Muslims: social alienation, religious antagonism and outright terrorism.
We know this. We all know it. And yet we continue to allow Muslim immigration. Why? What do we gain from it?
Well, up until two weeks ago you might have said, more doctors - for when Mary Harney declared that she was going to solve the impasse in the health service by bringing in medical graduates from around the world, we all accepted that doctors, no matter their religion, were dedicated to saving life.
That was then. We know otherwise now. Clearly the Hippocratic Oath doesn't have the universal power we once thought. Even Mengele, for all his evil, could maintain the fiction that his abominable experiments were of some medical use. But no one could possibly say that of the medical mass-murder plots in Britain, where the term WMD has taken on a new and grisly resonance for some Muslim doctors. Which ones? We don't know. Okay: so why take the risk?
Now, whenever I write about immigration, the response is a bristling silence, as the binary-weight of physical fear and PC-conformism successfully suppresses debate on Ireland's future. Occasionally, one hears a little bleat, "You're not being helpful" - ah yes, the lily-livered whinge of unprincipled liberalism.
Thus, the Dail has never debated the effects of Christian, European population-movement into Ireland, never mind the consequences of Islamic immigration. This is frivolousness to the point of delinquency, the hallmark of a society which has neither faith in its own values, nor a determination for them to endure. And a society which does not defend its core-certainties is sooner or later doomed. Much of Europe is so afflicted, and Britain is in an advanced stage of the disease.
Islamic norms are now tolerated, and informally enforced, across many British cities, where women routinely wear full face-veils. Of Britain's two million Muslims, over 300,000 believe suicide attacks in the West are justified, and 500,000 believe the 7/7 attacks in London two years ago were the work of British intelligence.
Some 600,000 do not even regard themselves as British, 37pc want sharia law in Britain, and one-quarter want to live in all-Muslim areas. Meanwhile, MI5 is close to being overwhelmed by the sheer scale of the domestic terrorist insurgency: 100 Islamicist suspects are already awaiting trial, and there are some 200 terrorist networks, with 1,700 members, now operating around the country.
"Immigrants are good for a society," goes the brainless parrot-cry of Irish dogmatic advocates. Sometimes, sometimes, but not always. In Britain, 16pc of Christians are economically inactive; the figure for Muslims is twice that, 31pc. Unemployment for Muslim women stands at 18pc, compared to 4pc for Jewish and Christian women.
In Luton, 44pc of school pupils are Muslim, though only 30pc of the population of the town are. Which means that Muslim families have 50pc more children than those of the indigenous population - in other words, within a couple of generations, the two groups in Luton will be swapping demographic places.
Better still, Dr Nazia Khanum, the "Chair" of the splendidly named Luton Multicultural Women's Coalition, (no, I didn't make it up: I just couldn't) has complained that in many village schools near Luton - in rustic Bedfordshire - both teachers and pupils were almost entirely white. What? White Christians? In England? How perfectly shocking.
And terrifyingly, there is no large-scale Islamic rejection of the murderous projects of their co-religionists in Britain; no mass-rallies of Muslims denouncing Islamicism; no call from within Muslim society for Muslims to join the army or police; and no unconditional and all-embracing campaign to extirpate murderous fundamentalism from within British Muslim society. Even "liberal" Muslims blame British foreign policy for Islamic terrorism in Britain, while remaining silent about the unspeakable Muslim-on-Muslim atrocities in Iraq.
These plumb depths that are unprecedented in any conflict. Take one recent example: Sunni terrorists exploded a bomb at a Shia girls' university near Baghdad as the students broke for lunch. A suicide car-bomber meanwhile watched which way the panic-stricken girls were fleeing from the blast, and then drove into the largest mass of them, detonated his bomb and killed over hundred of them.
Here was a very special jihad operation indeed, one in which the martyr personally took his 72 virgins with him to paradise, with another 30 to spare. What a thoughtful fellow. But not even the Nazis at their most depraved made a public virtue out of slaughtering teenage girls.
Enough. So what advantage do we derive from allowing Muslims into Ireland, rather than Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus, Parsis, Jains or even Christians? What rational justification is there for enlarging our Islamic population? What is it? Go on, what is it?
Posted by: twobyfour ||
08/05/2007 03:40 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under: Global Jihad
#1
PLS, shuffle into opinions. Misclicked, sorry. :8-(
#3
my parents are irish and i know for a fact that they wont put up with the shit us Londoners have to put up on a daily basis.Muslims create ghettos wherever they go as they are taught not to mix with infidels!!!!
High unemployment,welfare culture is what they add to a new country.why take them????more negatives than positives.I wish Tony Blair could have thourght about this 10 years ago!!!!!
Posted by: Paul ||
08/05/2007 6:21 Comments ||
Top||
#4
This was thought about 30 years ago by Enoch Powell vs the rest of Britain. The British made their decision and spent the next several decades feeling very superiour to the Americans and Rhodesians. Now the chickens are coming home.
#7
Thank you NS for the ref to Powell. Thank you also Google.
Enoch Powell spoke the truth on immigration
BRITISH POLITICIAN Enoch Powell, a member of Parliament for 37 years, died on Sunday. Powell was a man of extraordinary ability, who had the courage to speak the truth on immigration. For this, he was driven from the Tory leadership and became known as the best prime minister Britain never had.
The son of teachers, Powell won a scholarship to Cambridge, was a professor of Greek at 25, enlisted in the British army as a private at the outset of World War II and rose to the rank of brigadier general.
A Thatcherite before Thatcher, Powell was a forceful intellectual and an eloquent speaker.
On his death, Margaret Thatcher said: "There will never be anybody else so compelling as Enoch Powell. He had a rare combination of qualities all founded on an unfaltering belief in God, an unshakable loyalty to family and friends, and an unswerving devotion to our country."
But Powell is best remembered for a controversial 1968 address warning of the dangers to national unity from immigration, which came to be known as the "Rivers of Blood" speech.
Powell saw immigration from Britain's former colonies leading to an upsurge of crime and poverty and the fragmentation of British society. From his vantage point, the future looked bleak. "Like the Roman," Powell observed, "I seem to see the River Tiber foaming with much blood."
The Tory reaction was to brand him a racist. Powell was removed from Edward Heath's shadow cabinet and forever barred from the prime ministership.
Conservatives have a long and depressing tradition of bludgeoning immigration skeptics. In 1993, Winston Churchill, grandson of Britain's wartime prime minister, made similar observations. Churchill noted that while immigrants accounted for 6 percent of the nation, in some cities they constituted half the population.
Then-Prime Minister John Major, seeking to reassure the British, predicted that 50 years hence spinsters would still bicycle to communion on Sunday morning. "More likely the muezzin will be calling Allah's faithful to the High Main Street Mosque," Churchill countered. For integrity to match his namesake's, Churchill was excoriated by members of Major's cabinet.
Among the tributes delivered on Powell's passing, William Hague, the current Tory leader, said, "Powell spoke his mind without fear or favor." When Lord Norman Tebbit spoke his, at the Conservative Party Conference last year, Hague's gang rushed to disown him.
Tebbit didn't urge that immigration be curtailed, but merely warned of the dangers of multiculturalism. The children of immigrants "born here should be taught that British history is their history, or they will forever be foreigners holding British passports and this kingdom will become a Yugoslavia," Tebbit warned.
"Tebbit gives the impression of intolerance," Hague's office clucked. "William Hague wants to build a multicultural society." Well, good luck to him, and God save the Queen.
Still, Britain's immigration problems seem trifling next to our own. By the latest count, 9.2 percent of our population is foreign-born. In California, that figure rises to 25 percent.
Due largely to immigration (at the rate of about 1.5 million a year, 90 percent non-white), Americans of European stock will decline from 73.6 percent of the population today to 52.8 percent in 2050.
Augmenting the welfare rolls and crime statistics aren't the only contributions of newcomers. Like Enoch Powell, the more discerning among us see our national identity slipping through porous borders.
In his monograph Huddled Cliches, Larry Auster warns: "In addition to the millions of people who see the United States as a candy store without a lock, a significant number of immigrants have a conscious animus against this country
#8
Now, whenever I write about immigration, the response is a bristling silence, as the binary-weight of physical fear and PC-conformism successfully suppresses debate on Ireland's future. Occasionally, one hears a little bleat, "You're not being helpful" - ah yes, the lily-livered whinge of unprincipled liberalism.
Kevin has a way with words. The poetry of the Irish. Inviting hoardes of muslims into your midsts is like inviting cancer into your body. Eventually, it destroys you.
#9
Unfortunately for the US a significant portion of our ruling class also "have a conscious animus against this country." That is why they push the agenda of Jihad.
And terrifyingly, there is no large-scale Islamic rejection of the murderous projects of their co-religionists in Britain; no mass-rallies of Muslims denouncing Islamicism; no call from within Muslim society for Muslims to join the army or police; and no unconditional and all-embracing campaign to extirpate murderous fundamentalism from within British Muslim society. Even "liberal" Muslims blame British foreign policy for Islamic terrorism in Britain, while remaining silent about the unspeakable Muslim-on-Muslim atrocities in Iraq.
And many liberals in both the U.S.A. and Britain buy this tripe. You liberals ignore the horrors unleashed by the muslims; you let PC trump good sense. You do not demand any accounting from the muslim community. They will keep doing what they are doing because there are no consequences for their behaviors and tacit support of their fellow muslims. They yell discrimination when anyone has the affrontery to call them on their unquestioning acceptance of islam and sharia law. The muslims believe it is their time to dominate and rule the world.
It is about 9.5 minutes in length. A poster on HotAir deserves the Hat Tip, but I can't recall his name.
Posted by: Natural Law ||
08/05/2007 10:00 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Yep, and it's all to with "Foreign Policy", and that's the pakiwaki version.
Pass the smack, kill infidels, turn a blind eye to everything. Taqiya, too, occasional hudna, total islam is what they want, and Brits are being blinded to the threat by a media that is totally deceptive, with its' own agenda, never mind the politicians. Been going on for years.
#15
We have to force ourselves to turn off the TV, go out and discuss policy among your fellow Americans, force the asshole Congress to make laws and make a better world.
We are great at setting aside land in perpituity, and protecting the environment for various fauna, but rampant overpopulation and wide open borders seem to be far beyond our human reach.
BULLSHIT ! We can stop immigration, we can set population limits, and we can export the ideas necessary for other countries to control their own populations. While doing so, remember one thing. He who desires expanding his political base is the enemy among us. We can remove them now at the risk of being PC negative, or we can sit back and allow the once great USA to become the cracking, aging, 20th century museum and monument to apathy.
#16
Comparable movements of Christians into Muslim societies are not permitted, so what essential, non-negotiable, mutually respected right is involved?
Reciprocity? What a concept daring notion!
And terrifyingly, there is no large-scale Islamic rejection of the murderous projects of their co-religionists in Britain; no mass-rallies of Muslims denouncing Islamicism; no call from within Muslim society for Muslims to join the army or police; and no unconditional and all-embracing campaign to extirpate murderous fundamentalism from within British Muslim society. Even "liberal" Muslims blame British foreign policy for Islamic terrorism in Britain, while remaining silent about the unspeakable Muslim-on-Muslim atrocities in Iraq.
Ye, goode olde deafening silence. Heard thundering on sides of the pond and vigorously ignored by liberals and our political traitor elite in equal measure.
Looks like a sort term profit win for this group but a long term loss for the people of the USA.
...
Which means that if Iraq is to have a future, it will be determined either by the independent or collaborative actions of the major outside powers -- the United States and Iran. For the past five years those two states have been at odds over Iraq, but over the past several months fleeting clandestine negotiations have turned public and become substantial. Task lists have been drawn up and implemented, with benchmarks established to demonstrate trust and progress.
Among those tasks and benchmarks is achieving the buy-in of the various Iraqi factions -- by force if necessary -- with the Iranians responsible for the Shia and the Americans responsible for the Sunnis and Kurds. But not everyone likes what Tehran and Washington are cooking up -- and this leads to various, shall we say, objections. Some powers object by challenging the prime minister, others by threatening secession, yet others by backing Kurdish militants or interfering with military operations. The jihadists object by blowing up cheering soccer fans.
...
Posted by: 3dc ||
08/05/2007 13:14 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
#1
I'm not sure I'd believe Stratfor if they told me the sky was blue. (Remember when they said the capture of Kabul by the Northern Alliance meant that the Taliban had us where they wanted us?) THey do not appear to have any special insight. All they ever do is recycle conventional wisdom--which is often coextensive with wishful thinking among the Realist set.
Posted by: Mike ||
08/05/2007 13:50 Comments ||
Top||
One of the finest, and most courageous, Steyn columns I've read.
Excerpt:
Unfortunately, if you then try to buy "Alms for Jihad," you discover that the book is "Currently unavailable. We don't know when or if this item will be back in stock." Hang on, it was only published last year. At Amazon, items are either shipped within 24 hours or, if a little more specialized, within four to six weeks, but not many books from 2006 are entirely unavailable with no restock in sight.
Well, let us cross the ocean, thousands of miles from the Amazon warehouse, to the High Court in London. Last week, the Cambridge University Press agreed to recall all unsold copies of "Alms for Jihad" and pulp them. In addition, it has asked hundreds of libraries around the world to remove the volume from their shelves. This highly unusual action was accompanied by a letter to Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz, in care of his English lawyers, explaining their reasons:
"Throughout the book there are serious and defamatory allegations about yourself and your family, alleging support for terrorism through your businesses, family and charities, and directly.
"As a result of what we now know, we accept and acknowledge that all of those allegations about you and your family, businesses and charities are entirely and manifestly false."
Who is Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz? Well, he's a very wealthy and influential Saudi. Big deal, you say. Is there any other kind? Yes, but even by the standards of very wealthy and influential Saudis, this guy is plugged in: He was the personal banker to the Saudi royal family and head of the National Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia, until he sold it to the Saudi government. He has a swanky pad in London and an Irish passport and multiple U.S. business connections, including to Thomas Kean, the chairman of the 9/11 Commission.
I'm not saying the 9/11 Commission is a Saudi shell operation, merely making the observation that, whenever you come across a big-shot Saudi, it's considerably less than six degrees of separation between him and the most respectable pillars of the American establishment.
As to whether allegations about support for terrorism by the sheikh and his "family, businesses and charities" are "entirely and manifestly false," the Cambridge University Press is going way further than the United States or most foreign governments would. Of his bank's funding of terrorism, Sheikh Mahfouz's lawyer has said: "Like upper management at any other major banking institution, Khalid Bin Mahfouz was not, of course, aware of every wire transfer moving through the bank. Had he known of any transfers that were going to fund al-Qaida or terrorism, he would not have permitted them." Sounds reasonable enough. Except that in this instance the Mahfouz bank was wiring money to the principal Mahfouz charity, the Muwafaq (or "Blessed Relief") Foundation, which in turn transferred them to Osama bin Laden.
#5
Sooner or later, we're going to come to the unescapable conclusion that Islam must be destroyed, and start nuking the MME. Then, and only then, will this BS stop. I only pray it doesn't come too late.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
08/05/2007 22:43 Comments ||
Top||
. . . The conservative New York Sun says this morning that leading Democrats have seen little risk in demanding a withdrawal of American troops, buffeted by polls that show as many as seven in 10 voters are on their side. But what if the military situation in Iraq turns around? Some are advising caution, warning that Democrats could lose the high ground if they are perceived to be ignoring evidence that President Bushs troop surge is achieving success. In a column appearing in todays Washington Times, Cal Thomas writes, Most Democrats seem so invested in defeat in Iraq that they apparently have no Plan B, which would be success. Thomas goes on to note comments by House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn, reported Tuesday on the Washington Posts website. Clyburn said a favorable report from Gen. David Petraeus could lead 47 moderate-to-conservative Blue Dog Democrats to oppose a withdrawal timetable, making it virtually impossible for the liberal leadership to pass such legislation. [It would be] a real problem for us, said Mr. Clyburn.
. . . The Democratic leaderships strategy is one not seen since World War II, where the Japanese determined that their only chance of winning was their won self-destruction. No, hang on, that doesnt work. The Japanese actually fought to the death, and killed themselves to avoid surrender, and here were seeing a case of surrendering to the death. It may be unprecedented. Well need to get the Oxford Medievalist in on this.
Anyway, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, there is a fundamental problem with a strategy based on losing. Only by losing can you win. And what you have won is a loss. You can come at it from every side, but theres just no way around it. But when every effort to win by losing keeps going down in ignominious defeat, and the win that you hope to portray as a loss keeps showing up as a win, you risk losing everything. Which, presumeably, must mean someone else is winning. But thats a loss, which is victory. Stay with me here. It follows then that the greatest Democratic victory, short sword having already been honorably stuck in the belly, would be a merciful lopping off of all surrender dreams in November 2008, when Thompson or Romney or Giuliani gets elected, when Mother Sheehan takes Pelosis seat OK, that might be a little farfetched but when that glorious Democratic mandate of the people loses a dozen seats or whatever narrow margin it holds, because the American people, who can only be fooled some of the time, have finally figured out that losing is not winning.
OK, bad analogy, Ive got to get off that Japanese fatalism thing. Weve already discussed the fact that the Japanese, unlike the Dems, did themselves in to avoid surrender, and honor certainly has nothing to do with what the Dems are up to now. The Dems, we can expect, will go whining loudly into the wilderness.
Posted by: Mike ||
08/05/2007 06:48 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under: Iraqi Insurgency
#1
I'm finding what is happening in our congress right now to be frightening.
Look - the current Dem leaders are clowns. The liberal left is a shrinkinig minority who is getting so small, that they are becoming less than the margin of error. Only 3% approved of the way the Congress is handling the war. It's a shocking number. But what is more shocking to me is that rather than attempt to gain back the support of the people who put them in power, the Dems are beginnig to employ naked power grabs - as they did when shutting down the vote on Friday. And with the support of the MSM - they seem to be getting away with it.
An animal is most dangerous when cornered. The People(TM) have spoken to the Congress and Senate: We don't support your handling of the war or immigration or taxes etc. Yet rather than to accept that and bend to the will of the people, they are simply grabbing the power and wresting it away from us. If that means shutting down free speech and confiscating our guns, they are willing to do it.
It's easy to laugh it off - but they are in power and if they refuse to give it back to us, the consequences of that will be very dire indeed!
Posted by: AT ||
08/05/2007 11:11 Comments ||
Top||
Frontpage Interviews guest today is Ralph Peters
... He is the author of the new book, Wars of Blood and Faith: The Conflicts That Will Shape the 21st Century.
... The problem is that the Washington crowd is secular from start to finish.
...We mock al Qaeda for clinging to the past, but Washington is equally desperate to hold fast to the last century's secular interpretation of all human actions. We face enemies who want to please their God with blood sacrifices. And we just want to please the lawyers.
...FP: What are the lessons so far of both Iraq and Israel's war with Hezbollah?
Peters: If you're not willing to out-kill your enemies, you lose. Period. Rest at the link
Posted by: gromgoru ||
08/05/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under: Global Jihad
#1
Worth the read. Sums up and agrees with many opinions expressed here in the past.
#2
Arab societies are incompetent to build even the most half-baked rule-of-law.
The truth outs at last.
The United States of America will pull through. But we're going to pay an awful price along the way, thanks to the wilful naivety, selfishness, self-absorption and cowardice of our political "elite."
ZING!
All that they hold dear holds them back. Islamists and their sympathizers are humiliated by their self-wrought failures, angry at our success, sick with jealousy, and desperately in need of a hot date.
And he aint talking about no palm tree fruit.
The Europeans have been playing pacifist dress-up while we protected them, but, sufficiently threatened, they'll revert to their historical pattern--which is to over-react. Europe's Muslims may prove to be the real endangered species; after all, Europe's history of dealing with rejected minorities veers between genocide and, for the lucky, ethnic cleansing.
Which is remarkably similar to my own position. Curious, that. Peters has it nailed, right down to Obama being a "wanker". RTWT.
#3
Not so fast. Peters is afflicted by the delusion that only a handful of extremists have hijacked the cult. GWOT is front line/rear guard war mixed with Kulturkampf. Unfortunately, only a handful are fighting the latter, to the serial derision of the snotty Ralph Peters. Half-right won't do it for me. As for his epigramatic style: lame.
#4
I thought this was going to be a review of the Rantapalooza, at which a fine time was had by all. The absolute highlight of the evening was when our special guest from Cincinnati danced the tarantella on the table.
Great thanks to Fred and Emily nfor a wonderful evening.
#5
Grr, I must've missed that, NS. I was engaged in sparkling conversation with Eric and Rambler.
You do have the video....
Posted by: Bobby ||
08/05/2007 9:42 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I didn't get that Peter's was saying that only a handful had hijacked the cult. To the contrary...
While I admire Peters for having the cajones to say what most are afraid to discuss, I that it is not too late to make a few changes to the immigration system that will allow Muslims who wish to live in the 21st Century to stay and to eliminate those who do not. It's a bit like the Mexican problem. A good majority of Mexicans living here move on and become indistinguishable from any other American. But the jails and welfare systems are over-run - not because millons of Mexican people are incapable of integrating into our society - but because our society is currently incapable of rejecting the millions who are NOT capable of integrating. If we just passed a few laws - then the problem would soon be over. But we can't pass the laws because we have such worthless law makers who are beholden to the money that comes from special interests rather.
I think it is up to us, The People(TM) to get involved in our government and demand action from the clowns that currently run our government.
Posted by: AT ||
08/05/2007 10:54 Comments ||
Top||
#7
A good majority of Mexicans living here move on and become indistinguishable from any other American. But the jails and welfare systems are over-run - not because millons of Mexican people are incapable of integrating into our society - but because our society is currently incapable of rejecting the millions who are NOT capable of integrating.
#9
There are two sorts of "thinkers" out there that repel me: Those who change their positions every other day and have no consistency or integrity (or first-hand experience of what they're writing about), and, at the other extreme, academics who spend their entire lives defending their dissertations in the face of overwhelming evidence that they were wrong. My goal is to get it right--and I'm proud of my record over the years--but also to have the integrity to admit it when I get it wrong, for example when I believed that the Bush administration was really willing to fight to win in Iraq--which it hasn't been.
Preach it! Those kinds of "thinkers" disgust me too!
Well, sorry, folks. All those factors may matter, but they're secondary to the fanatical faith of the terrorists and other assorted murderers we face. If religion isn't really a factor, where are the Western atheist suicide bombers?
For that matter, where are the Palestinian Christian suicide bombers?
The problem is that the Washington crowd is secular from start to finish. Even those who go to a church or synagogue every week have been so thoroughly secularized intellectually by their educations and the circles in which they live their professional and personal lives that they have no sense of the power of unbridled faith, of the spectacular power of revelation, of the suddenness of conversion--or even of the basic human need for something greater than the self in which to believe. We mock al Qaeda for clinging to the past, but Washington is equally desperate to hold fast to the last century's secular interpretation of all human actions.
EXACTLY what I've been trying to say as well. Religion has power, and the Marxists are pissed that the Muzzies are not acting as if Islam was an opiate (a depressant) but is akin to amphetamine (a stimulant).
#11
AM, I cited your comment about your view of the Mexican illegal alien problem at my blog. Insightful and thought provoking. I see a few roadblocks, but getting rid of them would also improve the legal system overall.
Today, RON (remaining overnight) aircraft are invariably unattended and unlocked all night. Commercial aircraft typically do not have locks in their doors. They are protected by roving airport police patrols and closed circuit cameras. Neither methodology is very robust. A skeleton crew of employees is also on duty who may see something suspicious, but most have gone home. Jetway doors prevent access from the terminal but the exterior aircraft doors are unlocked to anyone who pushes a stairway up to them.
If weapons are planted onboard, a terrorist team could have simply cleared security with their fellow passengers the next day, and armed themselves using the hidden weapons.
This threat is mitigated by the fact that pilots, flight attendants, and ramp agents now routinely inspect the aircraft before flight each day, and this provides a measure of security. But it is not foolproof. Since there is little time to do a thorough inspection prior to passenger boarding, well-concealed weapons can be missed.
Almost six years after 9/11, it is inexcusable that in an environment where TSA misses more than 90% of weapons, RON aircraft are not secured, and ground employees are not screened fewer than 2% of our airliners have a team of armed pilots aboard, fewer than 5% have air marshals, and the flight attendants have no mandatory tactical or behavioral assessment training. $24 billion dollars later, we are not materially safer, except in the areas of intelligence that prevent an attack from getting to an airport. Once at the airport, there is little reason to believe the attack wont succeed.
If these airplanes were appropriately defended, it would matter less who got onboard and with what weapon. From a comment at Jerry Pournelle's website at the moment the TSA is indistinguishable from an organization whose major purpose is to humiliate the people and make certain Americans understand they are subjects and not citizens. How easily can they be circumvented by intelligent and determined people? What new targets do our security measures create?
It is pretty clear that you can't stop intelligent and determined people from destroying airplanes if the attacker doesn't mind being killed. You can prevent the airplanes from being taken over and used as cruise missiles against other targets. We all know how that can be done. Strong cockpit doors, armed pilots, air marshals not dressed in 3-piece suits and short haircuts
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 ||
08/05/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under: Global Jihad
#1
at the moment the TSA is indistinguishable from an organization whose major purpose is to humiliate the people and make certain Americans understand they are subjects and not citizens. How easily can they be circumvented by intelligent and determined people? What new targets do our security measures create?
The TSA is a creature born of politics, midwifed by the cynical, and parented by the incompetent. It is the prime example of how un-serious and cynical the civilian side of 'homeland security' (and their part in the WoT) is.
From Blond Sagacity Blog:
Asking a liberal to appreciate what the military has meant to this country is akin to asking a sloth to appreciate the branches that keep it high above the predators. For the sloth to value the contribution the branches make to its security, the dim witted mammal would require the ability to recognize a pattern.
#1
Meanwhile, Hillary was booed at a Kos encounter, after she said this: "A lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans, they actually do."
And she ACTUALLY has her nose in the lobby pig trough.
#2
The liberals are very predictable in their diatribes, litanies and behaviors. Maybe it is because they have so many juvenile-minded whiners in their ranks. Maybe it is because they don't really stand for anything other than getting elected or re-elected and becoming a part of the tax-funded public welfare trough.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
