[ExI] Terrorist? Who can tell?
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>
CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP
More information about the extropy-chat