Skip to content

Conservative Approaches to Terrorism

December 28, 2009

WE AREN’T HYSTERICALSERIOUS ENOUGH in our response to the Nigerian Christmas would-be terrorist plane bomber. So says Donald Douglas, partisan windbag.

In another of his posts, Douglas characterizes the event as a “threat of potentially catastrophic proportions.” He mentions, among other things, the lack of a “screening system or requirement in place at international airports that will detect explosives.”

Perhaps this type of screening at airports simply isn’t feasible. Surely a cost-benefit analysis, a pragmatic calculation which shouldn’t be that hard to understand for self proclaimed fiscal conservatives. It goes something like this:

[If the video doesn't work here, it can be viewed on YouTube]
UPDATE: If the video doesn’t work here and comes up as “blocked” on YouTube, it can be downloaded here. Fair use, motherfuckers!

When such a screening process proves unfeasible, new rules are implemented instead. No walking about the plane, or covering up with a blanket for the last hour of a flight. Really? No watching live television news on board? Come on, you authorities aren’t even trying anymore in your attempts to prove you’re doing something to protect the traveling public.

In all seriousness, impractical fantasy response, and absurd actual response to this (failed!) attack aside, why respond at all? Terrorism ain’t nothin’ to be afraid of it’s so rare. You don’t worry this much about lightening strikes or shark attacks, do you? If you’re really really risk averse, you can easily avoid international terrorist attacks by religious radicals by staying home.

There’s the solution: personal responsibility. Crying to the Daddy State to protect you from every conceivable harm is absurd. Familiarize yourself with the latest terrorist tactics. Decide how you would choose to respond to them in the unlikely event, and train your body and mind in those responses. Demand that the authorities report the nature of the threats we face so that the public is as informed as is possible. (If the existing protocol for dealing with hijackers, for example, were to go along with their demands and allow the experts to do the negotiating, and intelligence comes in that says terrorists may try to use hijacked planes as missiles, change the protocol! And publicize the change so the people know what they might be up against.)

That said, in all fairness, Donald Douglas isn’t a hand-wringing Daddy State type. He’s deeper than that!

Douglas, in his security and terrorism posts seldom fails to bring the discussion back around to radicalism. Opting, it seems, to concentrate on the thought crimes that sometimes lead people with radical beliefs to do radical things, rather than focusing efforts on preventing the crimes themselves. A sycophant to power, Douglas would rather indict the convenient bogeyman. These days it’s radical Islam. Our rulers desire to conquer and strategically control the Middle East? That fucker’s full of Muslims. We must do something about them!

2 Comments leave one →
  1. January 11, 2010 1:08 PM

    These whole body scanners, the one’s that are really expensive but don’t actually work against the kind of exploding undergarments we’re now coming up against, do you ever wonder who holds the shares in the company that makes them?

    Not that I’m suggesting homeland security, gimmick politics and keeping the people in fear is a licence to print money. Oh no, not me.

    It’s radicalism I blame.

Trackbacks

  1. Stump Lane — Bleggalgazing

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: