evolutia stelara: ON TERRORISM PREVENTION AND ITS METHODOLOGY

IT IS ALL FOR SHOW, NOT REALLY EFFECTIVE AND IT COSTS A BUNDLE

I have not touched upon this subject in a while since I think it is part of the distraction hand-fed to us by Republicans. First it was BUSH WAR OF TERROR…not ON terror. It was meant to keep us docile while scaring the shit out of America.

Sadly, a continuation of the same under President Obama. Perhaps Americans just got so used to these searches and security procedures that it made no difference if they were effective or not as long as they made us feel secure.

I have said it before: If another attack is to take place it is not coming from the passenger on an airplane. I remember the humiliating search they did on my then 92 year old mother, on a wheelchair at the Seattle airport. They even asked us if we were Greek….WTF? Good grief, an old woman aged 92 is going to be blowing up the airplane? If any attack is to come is going to be in a container at one of our ports or in some other unthinkable form…remember the terrorists are very creative and always ahead of us in thinking up ways of hurting us.

My argument at the time was that they could see this old woman represented no threat nor would she be likely to be carrying anything in her thin, miniscule frame which also had a blouse on her that was almost transparent…what I was bitching about is the lack of common sense, the absence of logic behind what they had just done…and it did upset her and it did scared her when they did it. But I suppose it is far too much to ask to have these TSA employees use logic and common sense since they are refugees from the McDonalds and Burger King work pool.

Has anyone noticed that the “failed” terrorist attempts come at intervals?; the Jihadists send in some retard who thinks that if he can set his shoe on fire while on flight he will obtain martyrdom. This is not coincidence; the terrorists know what they are doing…it requires a minimum investment: some intellectually challenged individual and very little hardware and it is NOT MEANT TO GO OFF! But it is intended to keep the terror going and forcing governments to spend billions of dollars in useless security measures.

I think that someone else has said it better than I:

We have met the enemy

by Laurence Lewis

Sat Nov 27, 2010

Patrick Porter is a Senior Lecturer in Defense Studies at King's College London. A couple weeks ago, he had a terrific article in The Guardian, which summed up the failures of the past decade:

“The overestimation of our power and the underestimation of resistance has been a signature tune of the war on terror.

A seemingly simple lesson that defies the ongoing strategy devised and promoted by both the militants and the war profiteers. And he offers a different approach:

It's time for restraint over activism, for power conservation over its expenditure, for doing no harm over doing good. It means combating terrorism with ordinary police work and intelligence sharing and calibrated disruption. We should focus our military most on what it does most effectively: secure our territory and sea lanes, deter other states and exist as a wise insurance policy for emergencies. Let's try that for the next 10 years, and see where it takes us.

It also means being restrained in how we think. The world may be chaotic. But we are part of that chaos. Except in atypical circumstances, the military is not a surgical tool of political engineering, but a bludgeon wielded by specialists in violence. We therefore don't have the power to alter the political condition of others at our own timetable.

If we want to contain own worst enemy, it is time to look in the mirror.

Any time we declare war on an abstract concept, not only do we waste decades, we also fail to make things better: the war on poverty, the war on drugs, the war on terror. We need a different approach. We need a different way of conceiving our approach. War isn't the answer. War isn't the right idea. It's about bluster, not solving problems.”