Archive for December 1st, 2006
Letter from a reader
I’m generally not big on re-printing entire emails I get, since that’s pretty lazy on my part. But this is a special case, excellent email from reader TomK. Hopefully he doesn’t mind that I’m putting up the full thing.
As a little background, we’re referring to the miserable failure of Newark Airport in a very recent security test.
***********************
A few weeks back, news came out that the security staff at Newark Airport failed 20 out of 22 tests for bombs, weapons, etc. — of the sort that could be used for another “9/11″ attack.
For me, the conclusion comes tumbling out: There is no war on terror. The whole thing is made up. Here’s what I mean…
On 9/11, two (I think) of the four planes took off from Newark (sorry…”Liberty” {shudder}) International Airport. Since then, a tremendous amount of attention has been placed on airport security — despite protestations that rail, shipping, highway, and other transportation and infrastructure targets are equally vulnerable and could be targets in similarly devastating attacks. We’ve seen that attention being poured into airport <!– D(["mb","three airports where the 9/11 jets flew from.
Like Newark.
Well, apparently from a security standpoint, terrorism-wise, Newark is a sieve.
&nbsp;So follow the bouncing ball backwards, now. &nbsp;Newark ought to be among the best
at stopping terrorist trouble...
But they aren\'t. &nbsp;Plainly, terrorists have commandeered no further Newark
planes. &nbsp;(Good thing for us they didn\'t; these tests suggest a 91% success
rate!) &nbsp;They\'ve left Newark Airport alone. &nbsp;Well sure, we think: terrorists
assume (as we did) that Newark is now a fortress, impervious to their perfidy.
So they\'d look to other, less protected airports.
But they haven\'t. &nbsp;No other airports have been targeted. &nbsp;Well, sure, we think:
&nbsp;They won\'t use airplanes again. &nbsp;Fool me once, etc. &nbsp;They\'ll assume the whole
industry is so tight, any plot would fail...so they\'ll use some less-protected
vector. &nbsp;Like shipping containers. &nbsp;Or rail travel. &nbsp;Or water supplies. &nbsp;Or
power grids. &nbsp;Not only is it logical that they\'d be less protected -- our media
regularly pronounces them as glaringly, plainly, nakedly, shamefully
unprotected. That\'s where they\'ll attack now.
But they haven\'t.
And it\'s not that the government has been thwarting such plots and keeping mum
about it. They\'re eager to shout out the most dubious successes. Like those
numbnuts in Florida who had "targeted" Chicago (but had never been there) or
the dread Soda Bottle gang in London (who had no tickets or passports), or the
plot to blow up the tower in San Francisco two years prior (to which the mayor
of San Fran said: "...sorry, blow up what now?").
For this to be a war, you need an antagonist. Someone has to be Out There,
doing battle with us. This whole country is a sieve, but no one\'s coming
through.
There is no war on terror.
Website:
IP: 65.40.196.61
",0] ); //–> security — it’s easily measured in terms of irritation, delay and indignity when we try and take the shuttle to Peoria. Despite all the other glaring holes in our national security, we’ve reason to be confident our airports have learned and scrupulously applied those lessons. Probably doubly so for the three airports where the 9/11 jets flew from.
Like Newark.
Well, apparently from a security standpoint, terrorism-wise, Newark is a sieve. So follow the bouncing ball backwards, now. Newark ought to be among the best at stopping terrorist trouble…
But they aren’t. Plainly, terrorists have commandeered no further Newark planes. (Good thing for us they didn’t; these tests suggest a 91% success rate!) They’ve left Newark Airport alone. Well sure, we think: terrorists assume (as we did) that Newark is now a fortress, impervious to their perfidy. So they’d look to other, less protected airports.
But they haven’t. No other airports have been targeted. Well, sure, we think: They won’t use airplanes again. Fool me once, etc. They’ll assume the whole industry is so tight, any plot would fail…so they’ll use some less-protected vector. Like shipping containers. Or rail travel. Or water supplies. Or power grids. Not only is it logical that they’d be less protected — our media regularly pronounces them as glaringly, plainly, nakedly, shamefully unprotected. That’s where they’ll attack now.
But they haven’t.
And it’s not that the government has been thwarting such plots and keeping mum about it. They’re eager to shout out the most dubious successes. Like those numbnuts in Florida who had “targeted” Chicago (but had never been there) or the dread Soda Bottle gang in London (who had no tickets or passports), or the plot to blow up the tower in San Francisco two years prior (to which the mayor of San Fran said: “…sorry, blow up what now?”).
For this to be a war, you need an antagonist. Someone has to be Out There, doing battle with us. This whole country is a sieve, but no one’s coming through.
There is no war on terror.
*************************
Well put, Tom.
Posted: December 1st, 2006 under terrorism.
Comments: 2