Comic Genesis Forums

Well this new terror plot is all over the news, and it reminds me more and more how stupid we are when it comes to airport security. Why waste our time searching and stopping little old ladies and mothers with babies? That accomplishes nothing; we all know who the terrorists will be. Young Middle Eastern men, yes I am suggesting the horrors of using common sense. Heck take it further, since the libs say it is the most extreme expression of freedom of speech to rip and mock everything related to Christianity (with taxpayers money) , I say airports do the same with Islam. Have big posters in the terminal with the captions “Allah is a false god” “Mohammed sleeps with goats” And watch the passengers. Whoever reacts negatively will get a full body cavity search. Just sick of all this hemming and hawing over security, I don’t give a damn if we offend someone, it is COMMON SENSE.

I'm sorry, but common sense is banned as a WMD...

Might sound better if it reads "Mohammed sleeps with pigs".

"Forty-Five Insurance Company, providing you with high-caliber protection since 1911."

Clueless lib: "Not all muslims are suicide bombers!"
Me: "No, but all suicide bombers ARE MUSLIM!"


And if muslims complain...

"You're singling me out!"

"$%$%^# YES WE ARE. Now, get into the bombproof security office or you can try and run and get shot so many times you'll need a forklift as a pallbearer."

First of all, Muslims are *disproportionately* part of the suicide bomber population. They make up slightly less than half of it while being less than 1/6th of the world population. So no, you don't just search muslims. And while muslim males are the overwhelming majority of suicide bombers, the ladies have recently started to get in the act.

That being said, our current security search system at the airports sucks donkey balls and needs to drop the political correctness immediately.

Of course, I'm praying that the all-around panic (especially the airports') dies down before I leave next week, or I'm going to have a very unpleasant first out-of-country experience. I'm seriously considering leaving my laptop at home if I can't have it as a carry-on, although since I'm doing computer work in Bangladesh, I could really, really, really use my laptop.

At least my flight hasn't been cancelled...yet.

A point to consider about profiling though...if we did start profiling Arabic Muslims (not saying it's a bad idea), you know what the terrorists would do?

They'd start aggressively recruiting non-Arabs and changing their operatives' identities to look like non-Arabs (contacts, skin color changes, hair dye). That's my take, anywho.

I just pray my flight goes off okay...

TMLutas wrote:First of all, Muslims are *disproportionately* part of the suicide bomber population. They make up slightly less than half of it while being less than 1/6th of the world population.

I am curious, what other group uses murderers strapped with explosives to slay innocents, women, and children?

The Test Sums it up.

TMLutas wrote:First of all, Muslims are *disproportionately* part of the suicide bomber population. They make up slightly less than half of it while being less than 1/6th of the world population.

That is true --- nonetheless, according to the MIPT Terrorism Database and Jane's Intelligence, only ten terror groups remain significantly active, of which seven are Islamic, and three are secessionist regional movements which pose little or no threat outside their home nation. Further, the secessionist groups mount the majority of their attacks against government, military and police targets, while the Islamic groups primarily target civilians and civilian infrastructure.

Also, Islamic groups are disproportionately bloodier than their non-Islamic counterparts, with five times as many attacks resulting in six times as many wounded and ELEVEN times as many dead.

Al Qaeda (242 incidents, 5,121 killed, 11,959 wounded)
Hezbollah (179 incidents, 836 killed, 1,535 wounded)
Hamas (555 incidents, 603 killed, 2,905 wounded)
Palestinian Islamic Jihad (183 incidents, 208 killed, 1,065 wounded)
Armed Islamic Group (Algeria) (64 incidents, 506 killed, 259 wounded)

TOTAL: 1,223 incidents, 7,249 killed, 17,723 wounded.


Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (Sri Lanka) (155 incidents, 584 killed, 2,555 wounded)
Kurdistan Worker's Party (PKK) (Turkey) (102 incidents, 50 killed, 260 wounded)
Barbar Khalsa International (BKI) (India) (1 incident, 1 killed, 49 wounded)

TOTAL: 258 incidents, 630 killed, 2,864 wounded.

By far and away, Islamic sources are the primary cause of modern terrorism.

<long, drawn-out sigh>

In the first place, thanks, love, but we already are profiling anyone that fits the stereotypical appearance of a Muslim male. Anyone heavily bearded tends to get a very thorough going-over from the TSA already, whether they're white, brown or black.

The biggest problems with the system are:

1. "Muslim" is not a visible part of a person. The Muslim tradition does not include visible symbols of worship or distinct styles of dress. Even the "heavily bearded" part is a matter of personal choice. Effectively, Muslims look just like everyone else. Sorry, but it's true; remember John Walker? Blonde haired, blue eyed and Caucasian.

2. Sadly, terrorist != stupid. If it did, this would be easy. (Of course, stupid can equal terrorist sometimes... remember the shoe bomber?) The latest effort was to smuggle pieces of a bomb on board in carry-on luggage, then assemble them in-flight. Sports drink bottles were to be used to transport the liquid explosive, while standard consumer electronics (disposable camera, MP3 player) were to become the detonation systems.

3. Not all Muslims are terrorists (as the pretended "clueless lib" sock puppet pointed out). In fact, Pakistan is to be credited for helping prevent the plot from going forward, as they're the ones who alerted Great Britain and arrested some of the gang. That's right, a Muslim country arresting "Muslim" terrorists. That means some Muslims are on our side, whether you like it or not. Do we treat allies like enemies?

Bluntly, given that there really are no visible cues to differentiate a Muslim from an atheist, an agnostic, a Christian who doesn't wear a cross, a Jew who doesn't wear a Star of David, a Buddhist or a Shintoist, the only logical means of preventing the attacks is to search everyone. And that would shut down air travel completely.

In the meantime, we listen, we pray, and we work at keeping people safe. That's all we can do.

Oh, and while laptops are still permitted, liquids are not: No contact lens solution, shampoo, conditioner, shaving cream, shaving gel, K-Y Jelly, Vaseline, sunscreen, "lube", maple syrup, wine, or other liquid-bearing containers are permitted in the cabin until further notice. Baby food must be tasted at the gate by the passenger. Insulin-dependent diabetics are requested to schedule their injections so that they are not required in flight.

Until further notice, to put it simply: If it's liquid and we don't serve it, it goes in your checked luggage.

Yours truly,

The wolfish,

Wanderer

What's wrong with shutting down air travel? Seriously. Ever hear of anyone ramming a bullet train into a building? Ever hear of chunks raining all over downtown London after a train blows up? What's wrong with passenger liners making a come back for interontinental travel? The convenience of air travel is getting people killed.

Atarlost wrote:What's wrong with shutting down air travel? Seriously. Ever hear of anyone ramming a bullet train into a building? Ever hear of chunks raining all over downtown London after a train blows up? What's wrong with passenger liners making a come back for interontinental travel? The convenience of air travel is getting people killed.

<sigh> Since it seems I'm the only one interested in answering you just now...

Bullet train: Very nice, but of limited use generally. It's wonderful in Japan, and slightly less wonderful in other places. It's expensive to maintain, and more expensive to build in the first place. Other than that, and the fact that, if anything goes wrong, there's no fast way to stop the train, there's no trouble with bullet trains at all... for intracontinental travel. (Well, unless someone else pulls that Sarin maneuver that the one apocalyptic cult in Japan tried. Who knows? They might make it work better.)

Trains: Do I really need to remind you of the bombing on the London Underground? I love a good choo-choo as much as the next wolfie, but that's no safer than a plane when it comes to terrorists.

Seagoing vessels: Very nice, romantic, harking back to the days of romance and adventure... and slow as Christmas when seen from January. That aside, there's the little matter of sinkings, terrorist bombings, terrorist hostage crises, and being abandoned on-deck by the crew in an emergency. Oh, and pirates, believe it or not.

Airplanes are here to stay, more or less. For time-sensitive cargo and transport, they can't be beaten by anything short of a jetpack.

Yours truly,

The wolfish,

Wanderer

Rokas wrote:

TMLutas wrote:First of all, Muslims are *disproportionately* part of the suicide bomber population. They make up slightly less than half of it while being less than 1/6th of the world population.

I am curious, what other group uses murderers strapped with explosives to slay innocents, women, and children?

Communists on and around the indian subcontinent is a major source and intra PRC disputes are starting to involve suicide bombings but that is something that *everybody* wants to keep quiet because if the PRC goes, we are in a world of hurt.

*whistles past graveyard*...

Calbeck wrote:

TMLutas wrote:First of all, Muslims are *disproportionately* part of the suicide bomber population. They make up slightly less than half of it while being less than 1/6th of the world population.

That is true --- nonetheless, according to the MIPT Terrorism Database and Jane's Intelligence, only ten terror groups remain significantly active, of which seven are Islamic, and three are secessionist regional movements which pose little or no threat outside their home nation. Further, the secessionist groups mount the majority of their attacks against government, military and police targets, while the Islamic groups primarily target civilians and civilian infrastructure.

Also, Islamic groups are disproportionately bloodier than their non-Islamic counterparts, with five times as many attacks resulting in six times as many wounded and ELEVEN times as many dead.

Al Qaeda (242 incidents, 5,121 killed, 11,959 wounded)
Hezbollah (179 incidents, 836 killed, 1,535 wounded)
Hamas (555 incidents, 603 killed, 2,905 wounded)
Palestinian Islamic Jihad (183 incidents, 208 killed, 1,065 wounded)
Armed Islamic Group (Algeria) (64 incidents, 506 killed, 259 wounded)

TOTAL: 1,223 incidents, 7,249 killed, 17,723 wounded.


Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (Sri Lanka) (155 incidents, 584 killed, 2,555 wounded)
Kurdistan Worker's Party (PKK) (Turkey) (102 incidents, 50 killed, 260 wounded)
Barbar Khalsa International (BKI) (India) (1 incident, 1 killed, 49 wounded)

TOTAL: 258 incidents, 630 killed, 2,864 wounded.

By far and away, Islamic sources are the primary cause of modern terrorism.

I agree with all that you say. But your stats reinforce my point. You primarily go after muslims because that's where the trouble is. You don't just go after them for three reasons.

1. That blond haired, blue eyed guy clutching a bible could be a muslim terrorist (take a look at Ibrahim Hooper's photo sometime)

2. It's quite possible that one of those regional groups is going to branch out to making statements on US soil

3. Just because a non-islamic group hasn't made the list yet doesn't mean we want to let our guard down and assume that they'll never emerge.

Atarlost wrote:What's wrong with shutting down air travel? Seriously. Ever hear of anyone ramming a bullet train into a building? Ever hear of chunks raining all over downtown London after a train blows up? What's wrong with passenger liners making a come back for interontinental travel? The convenience of air travel is getting people killed.

Try doing the economic loss calculations on that one and you'll know why. We've adjusted our entire infrastructure to include air travel and it would be a very major adjustment. Now there *is* something that you could do that would take away 95% of the air threat and that would be to move to smaller planes. If we had flying cars, they would be much less of an attractive target and they wouldn't be big enough to take a building down in any way that wouldn't be cheaper and easier with a simple truck/car bomb. That would require a new type of ATC system to deal with the increased traffic in the sky and building instead of shutting down small local airports but it's doable in a way that entirely shutting down air travel is not.

Oh, btw: the ATC system is supposed to undergo exactly that sort of revamping with deployment date currently scheduled for 2017.

Wanderwolf wrote: 3. Not all Muslims are terrorists (as the pretended "clueless lib" sock puppet pointed out). In fact, Pakistan is to be credited for helping prevent the plot from going forward, as they're the ones who alerted Great Britain and arrested some of the gang. That's right, a Muslim country arresting "Muslim" terrorists. That means some Muslims are on our side, whether you like it or not. Do we treat allies like enemies?

Absolutely. There are plenty of Islamic Americans out there that favor our country over those in the Middle East. They should understand that sacrifices have to be made in order to keep our countries safe. Better yet, they could volunteer to enter the front lines, like many Japanese Americans did in World War II.

Wanderwolf wrote:Airplanes are here to stay, more or less. For time-sensitive cargo and transport, they can't be beaten by anything short of a jetpack.

Yours truly,

The wolfish,

Wanderer

I much prefer a SkyCat myself - which is more than a little ironic what with TotQ and all.

http://www.worldskycat.com/

Hell, were I to win the Powerball lotto, I'd be tempted to buy the SkyCat 20 in its SkyYacht version, just to be obnoxiously in-your-face annoying to everyone who HADN'T won the lotto.

http://www.worldskycat.com/markets/skyyacht.html

Imagine showing up at a furry or anime convention in one of those... talk about conspicious consumption.

Doink wrote:

Wanderwolf wrote: 3. Not all Muslims are terrorists (as the pretended "clueless lib" sock puppet pointed out). In fact, Pakistan is to be credited for helping prevent the plot from going forward, as they're the ones who alerted Great Britain and arrested some of the gang. That's right, a Muslim country arresting "Muslim" terrorists. That means some Muslims are on our side, whether you like it or not. Do we treat allies like enemies?

Absolutely. There are plenty of Islamic Americans out there that favor our country over those in the Middle East. They should understand that sacrifices have to be made in order to keep our countries safe. Better yet, they could volunteer to enter the front lines, like many Japanese Americans did in World War II.

Not only us, there's Israeli arabs asking to be drafted into the IDF to go after Hezbollah. I have no doubt that these guys are up north and getting a bit peeved at the missiles raining down on their heads.

Doink wrote:Absolutely. There are plenty of Islamic Americans out there that favor our country over those in the Middle East. They should understand that sacrifices have to be made in order to keep our countries safe. Better yet, they could volunteer to enter the front lines, like many Japanese Americans did in World War II.

Trouble with that, Doink, is that they're feeling conflicted. If they're truly sincere about their religion, that means they're pretty much required to believe that only a religious government is allowable. Barring that, a secular government that MUST bow and geek every time a islamic priest opens his mouth. ANY priest.

That's one of the smaller problems with Islam - no real checks on the power of a 'holy man'.

Me, I want to see Islam neutered in the same way that the major western churches were in the religious wars of the Reformation/Counter-Reformation. By the time those were over, the Roman Catholic church went from being something that could threaten you with paramilitary force if you didn't bow to being little more than a cranky little old lady whose worst threat was a mildly annoying scolding.

My grandfather (may he rest in peace) used to say he'd trust a politician ONLY if he had a gun to the politico's head, a knife to the poli's throat, and a set of jumper cables firmly attached to a set of Vise-Grips tightly clamped around the man's family jewels.

I feel much the same about 'holy men'. I figure that normal people should be innocent until proven guilty, but that priests and holy men should be considered guilty until proven innocent. And if they don't like that, then they shouldn't be priests.

The insincere ones are criminals, and the sincere ones are (in my eyes) insane. After all, what sane rational man would want to live a life of self-sacrifice? Certainly not me.