[ExI] Terrorist? Who can tell?

Harvey Newstrom mail at harveynewstrom.com
Sat Aug 30 20:48:43 UTC 2008

On Saturday 30 August 2008 01:24:43 Lee Corbin wrote:
> Oh?  It seemed to me to take tongs and pliers to extract this
> "self-evident" concession on some people's parts. I had to
> repeat no less than three times the precise question. 

Or, from the opposite point of view, it to pliers and repeated questioning to 
get you to even hint at what you were trying to lead us to say.  And I'm still 
not sure exactly what your point is.  It seems to have something to do with 
trying to say that racial profiling works, but you haven't really stated 
exactly what you claim or how it would work.

> (I fear that in each time, people were reluctant to concede the
> conclusion for fear of being politically incorrect---thus lending
> a hand, they supposed---to racism and abrupt stereotyping).
> My very first interlocutor in this thread, for example, continues
> his notable silence on my precisely stated question.)

No, I think people don't know what you are trying to say, because you are 
being so coy about it.  You are trying to lead other people into saying it 
first, but nobody knows what "it" is.  Why don't you come straght out and make 
a claim or ask a direct question.  We aren't sure where all these thought 
experiments and examples are leading.

> Here is what George Bush should have said the day after 9-11:
> "By Executive Order I command that *all* airline travel proceed
> exactly as scheduled and with no interruption in consequence of
> this attack. Henceforth, all passengers are ordered to physically
> overcome anyone attempting to hijack an aircraft. The completely
> unprepared passengers of Flight 93, who learned that they were
> going to die anyway if they did nothing, exemplified heroic behavior,
> and so must all of you, should this ever happen again. Knowing your
> resolve, we may be sure that hijackers will fear your canes, your
> heavy books, and your weighted handbags and will realize that
> they never will have a chance against determined Americans."

This seems to be a non-sequitur.  The Flight 93 example already happened and 
shows that this announcement is unnecessary.  The Flight 93 example shows what 
people will already do in the absence of such an announcement.  People already 
figured it out for themselves.

> Do you or do you not accept that the physically feeble should be
> "profiled out" of the silly inspections?

No way.  Suicide bombers in the middle east often pretend to be old or 
physically feeble to avoid inspection.  They have also pretended to be 
pregnant women and have employed children for bombings.  Sometimes, the 
carrier is a believer, sometimes it is a forced victim, sometimes it is an 
unknowing mule carrying items from unknown persons.  This is an well-known 
tactic that no middle-eastern security would fall for.

Thus, no physically feeble, elderly, pregnant or underage persons should be 
excluded from silly inspections.  Because they are often conduits for suicide 

Harvey Newstrom <www.HarveyNewstrom.com>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list