OK, so this bomb plot. Obiously, it is good that it was stopped. That goes without saying. But I'm being driven slowly insane by two different things right now
( Read more... )
thinking it is not easy to put a word to it is it?seraphimsigristAugust 10 2006, 16:55:49 UTC
fascist wont do. and terrorist wont either. I suppose the best word would be something like Islamist. possibly Jihadist but the idea of extending Darul Islam to the world by force or at least of militantly defending the house of islam against the house of the nations goes beyond simply Jihad. I am thinking though that Islamist is difficult to use without being politically incorrect -- notice how in London they speak of south asians rather than Pakistanis etc. well rightly one doesnt want a round of pak bashing but what word can one use?
Re: thinking it is not easy to put a word to it is it?mmaestroAugust 12 2006, 20:09:04 UTC
fascist wont do. and terrorist wont either.
I don't know, I don't think there's too much wrong with "Islamic Terrorist." I thought "Irish Republican Terrorist" worked pretty well for the IRA and similar groups. It's difficult to find a really accurate term that doesn't spread the *blame* too widely, or unintentionally tar peaceful Muslims with the same brush to at least a degree.
notice how in London they speak of south asians rather than Pakistanis etc. well rightly one doesnt want a round of pak bashing but what word can one use?
I think part of that is perhaps that there is also a large Indian population, and rightly or wrongly the Indian and Pakistani populations tend to be grouped together, despite their religious divisions.
yes, good thinking. yet a problem with terrorist is that it implies a specific sort of partisan warfare but what when they come with regular forces in the field as Hezbollah has or for that matter this is the problem of the Russians with the Chechen Islamists , where they resorted to the expression "illegal armed formation."
Well, I have to admit that I *do* think that the current security measures are silly and over-the-top, at least if continued long term. I think the bottom line is that in the long run, air travel needs to remain reasonably conveinent or the air travel industry, the tourism industry, and probably the economy in general (at least in the US), is going to come crashing down. I don't think it's practical to keep people from bringing electronics on board forever, for example.
The bottom line is that security in a system as big as the air travel system is going to be full of holes no matter what they do, and that the security in any system is only as good as the people in it (which judging from all the reports of stuff stolen from checked luggage during inspection, isn't saying much.)
I do think that preventing people from filling a water bottle or buying a soda on the concourse past security is rather silly. If the concourse is secure than liquid aquired there shouldn't be explosive, and if it's not secure we're sort of already screwed
I'm more worried about liquids, actually-flying is dangerous due to dehydration. I'd think asking people to open their (clear plastic) bottles of water and drink from them would be sufficient. Or only bring on drinks they'd bought on the concourse if they still had the plastic seal. And for example, I don't go anywhere without eye drops, because I wear contacts, especially on an airplane (see comments re: dehydration). Or is the Department of Homeland Security going to pay for my cornea transplants? (For that matter, are they going to pay for people's broken or lost laptops, iPods, and cell phones? If they lose my luggage with my car keys inside, are they going to pay for a replacement key fob [and my taxi home and/or rental car in the meantime]? Those things are really expensive.)
I read an article today recommending banning anything with a battery (including watches) and not allowing people into the airport until they'd been screened. Because, y'know, it's not like there are any airports anywhere in the world where the temperature
( ... )
Having your passports and money in a clear bag seems to accomplish exactly nothing.
You can see whether they have a banned item at a glance. I'd say that's a pretty significant benefit.
but you just can't keep totally impractical security measures in place for extended periods of time.
I'm honestly not sure how impractical this stuff is to keep up on a permanent basis. The increased security time is likely because a lot of people make mistakes, and so you have to have time to correct that. As people get used to the new measures, that'll be less likely. Screening people with only a clear plastic bag's worth of hand luggage will likely, IMO, end up being quicker in the long term than having to faff with x-ray scans and the like, if problems like medication can be ironed out.
1) Terrorists genuinely exist and are trying to kill innocent people, regardless of anything done by George W Bush.
2) Not all reporting done on terrorist attacks is produced in order to cover up something else.
3) Not all reporting about terrorism designed to keep people scared.
4) The thwarting of a major attack is genuinely newsworthy.
And these might all be true. But back in 2004 there was a HUGE wave of publicity about a "dirty bomb plot" that was referenced a lot by the government, and less than a month ago we found out it was all bollocks - it was pretty much a setup by the NOTW to sell more papers.
Given the level of disruption this has caused throughout the country, there is no doubt in my mind that it was a real plot, and that lives have been saved. But if we automatically assume every story about "HUGE PLOT TO KILL PEOPLE FOILED" is true, then we might as well give up independent thought and just submit to the mind-probes here and now.
I trust Scotland Yard more than the News of the World. I may trust a trained monkey to fly and aircraft more than the News of the World, actually.
But if we automatically assume every story about "HUGE PLOT TO KILL PEOPLE FOILED" is true, then we might as well give up independent thought and just submit to the mind-probes here and now.
Agreed, but at the same time I feel like it didn't take a lot of looking to realise this was probably legit. My immediate reaction was it was some sort of publicity stunt, but at that point I'd only seen the headlines, and was suspicious because a government minister resigned the night before over Blair's continued support of Israel's massacre of Lebanese (shame how that story got swept under the carpet). Once you'd even read half one of the stories of what was going on, it was apparent that this was a real story and not a fabrication.
Comments 18
I suppose the best word would be something
like Islamist. possibly Jihadist but the idea
of extending Darul Islam to the world by
force or at least of militantly defending the
house of islam against the house of the nations
goes beyond simply Jihad.
I am thinking though that Islamist is difficult
to use without being politically incorrect --
notice how in London they speak of south asians
rather than Pakistanis etc. well rightly one
doesnt want a round of pak bashing but what
word can one use?
Reply
I don't know, I don't think there's too much wrong with "Islamic Terrorist." I thought "Irish Republican Terrorist" worked pretty well for the IRA and similar groups. It's difficult to find a really accurate term that doesn't spread the *blame* too widely, or unintentionally tar peaceful Muslims with the same brush to at least a degree.
notice how in London they speak of south asians
rather than Pakistanis etc. well rightly one
doesnt want a round of pak bashing but what
word can one use?
I think part of that is perhaps that there is also a large Indian population, and rightly or wrongly the Indian and Pakistani populations tend to be grouped together, despite their religious divisions.
Reply
with terrorist is that it implies a
specific sort of partisan warfare but
what when they come with regular forces
in the field as Hezbollah has or for
that matter this is the problem of the
Russians with the Chechen Islamists
, where they resorted to the expression
"illegal armed formation."
Reply
I am not looking forward to flying without a water bottle and with all my sanitary goods on public view in a clear plastic bag.
But generally, *boggle*
Reply
Reply
Reply
Exactly. EXACTLY. This is just... this is scary. You can almost SEE where it's going...
Reply
The bottom line is that security in a system as big as the air travel system is going to be full of holes no matter what they do, and that the security in any system is only as good as the people in it (which judging from all the reports of stuff stolen from checked luggage during inspection, isn't saying much.)
I do think that preventing people from filling a water bottle or buying a soda on the concourse past security is rather silly. If the concourse is secure than liquid aquired there shouldn't be explosive, and if it's not secure we're sort of already screwed
Reply
I read an article today recommending banning anything with a battery (including watches) and not allowing people into the airport until they'd been screened. Because, y'know, it's not like there are any airports anywhere in the world where the temperature ( ... )
Reply
Reply
You can see whether they have a banned item at a glance. I'd say that's a pretty significant benefit.
but you just can't keep totally impractical security measures in place for extended periods of time.
I'm honestly not sure how impractical this stuff is to keep up on a permanent basis. The increased security time is likely because a lot of people make mistakes, and so you have to have time to correct that. As people get used to the new measures, that'll be less likely. Screening people with only a clear plastic bag's worth of hand luggage will likely, IMO, end up being quicker in the long term than having to faff with x-ray scans and the like, if problems like medication can be ironed out.
Reply
2) Not all reporting done on terrorist attacks is produced in order to cover up something else.
3) Not all reporting about terrorism designed to keep people scared.
4) The thwarting of a major attack is genuinely newsworthy.
And these might all be true. But back in 2004 there was a HUGE wave of publicity about a "dirty bomb plot" that was referenced a lot by the government, and less than a month ago we found out it was all bollocks - it was pretty much a setup by the NOTW to sell more papers.
Given the level of disruption this has caused throughout the country, there is no doubt in my mind that it was a real plot, and that lives have been saved. But if we automatically assume every story about "HUGE PLOT TO KILL PEOPLE FOILED" is true, then we might as well give up independent thought and just submit to the mind-probes here and now.
Reply
But if we automatically assume every story about "HUGE PLOT TO KILL PEOPLE FOILED" is true, then we might as well give up independent thought and just submit to the mind-probes here and now.
Agreed, but at the same time I feel like it didn't take a lot of looking to realise this was probably legit. My immediate reaction was it was some sort of publicity stunt, but at that point I'd only seen the headlines, and was suspicious because a government minister resigned the night before over Blair's continued support of Israel's massacre of Lebanese (shame how that story got swept under the carpet). Once you'd even read half one of the stories of what was going on, it was apparent that this was a real story and not a fabrication.
Reply
Leave a comment