Following a failed attempt by Richard Reid, the so-called “shoe bomber,” to set off explosives hidden in his shoe aboard an aircraft, the US Government instituted a new rule that forced all aircraft passengers to remove their shoes for inspection prior to boarding. In the wake of the botched attempt by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to blow up an aircraft with explosives hidden in his skivvies, the US Government created a new regulation that forced all passengers to either get a full-body scan or an intimate pat-down by airport security workers. I’m sure we all know what will happen once some terrorist attempts to blow up an aircraft with explosives concealed in his rectum.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) doesn’t exactly have a stellar record of protecting passengers from crazed terrorists. In most cases it was the passengers themselves, as in the shoe bomber and the skivvies bomber, who subdued the terrorists and brought them to justice. And a good case could be made that the terrorists’ own incompetence offers greater protection against catastrophic atrocities than the work of the TSA, whose only concern seems to be to make absolutely sure that in searching for crazies that would immolate themselves along with a plane full of innocents, that everyone is equally inconvenienced. If I were an al Qaeda chieftain, I’d call what the TSA is doing “victory.”
I’m sure this has already been pointed out by wiser pundits than yours truly, but wouldn’t it make sense to look for terrorists, rather than contraband? While it does to most sentient human beings, the bureaubots at the TSA disagree. That’s why we get stories about terrified, screaming three year-olds being groped by TSA goons or veterans well into their dotage being detained for a secondary search because an artificial joint caused the scanner to beep.
Here’s some advice for the TSA: if you really want to nab terrorists, look for them, don’t look for their potential weapons. Given that several thousand acts of terrorism have been perpetrated world wide over the past decade by guys with names like Mohammed, Abdul or Hamza, it might be a good idea to take a closer look at anyone who fits shall we say, a certain profile. This excludes nuns, Scottish grandmothers, guys named Biff and several other class of traveler.
There’s little doubt that Muslims understand the dynamics that drive the TSA and surely those bent on destroying the West are taking full advantage of those dynamics. It’s gotten to the point where they don’t actually have to blow up a plane to cause irreparable damage to our society. It’s enough to periodically send some poor schlub out with Semtec concealed someplace new, which starts a whole new round of seriously intrusive “security measures” that wind up costing more than they’re worth.
At the TSA political correctness trumps security, meaning that it’s okay to intrusively inconvenience 100% of travelers, so long as that small percentage of potentially aggrieved followers of a death cult aren’t singled out.
As result more and more people are giving up flying, which very likely is one of the outcomes that Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki are looking for. It’s clear that we have lost the will to prevail, given our responses to being attacked by an alien philosophy. It’s a far cry from how we reacted in World War II, when another alien philosophy attempted to destroy us.
The TSA’s commitment to political correctness is a harbinger of our ultimate demise. The conceit that everyone presents a potential danger to the security of travelers will enable fanatical Muslims to continue to define the terms under which they seek to destroy us.
Klaus Rohrich is senior columnist for Canada Free Press. Klaus also writes topical articles for numerous magazines. He has a regular column on RetirementHomes and is currently working on his first book dealing with the toxicity of liberalism. His work has been featured on the Drudge Report, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, among others. He lives and works in a small town outside of Toronto.
Klaus can be reached at [email protected]
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2017 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2017 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement