posted
I've finally decided to stop reading OSC's columns to save my blood pressure (and fondness for some of my favorite works of fiction), though I have to point one thing out in response to his more-than-offensive desire to receive special treatment at airports by virtue of his whiteness. His words:
quote: I am not a criminal. I have complied with all the laws and regulations. I should not have to be subjected to such loathsome alternatives in order to use public transportation.
It might be different (a) if I actually fit some kind of profile of a terrorist or (b) patting people down offered a reasonable chance of finding a terrorist weapon that would not be caught by a metal detector or body scanner. But (a) I do not fit any likely terrorist profile, being grey-haired, of European appearance, with an American accent, and (b) a pat-down such as I received would not have detected nonmetal explosives sewn into one's underwear.
Enough. There is no excuse except mindless political correctness to continue this level of harassment and abuse of citizens of a free country. Though the guard who was molesting me piously said, "There is no way to tell by looking who a terrorist might be," there is, in fact, a perfectly reliable set of indicators of who really doesn't need to be patted down.
For instance, non-Middle-eastern-looking middle-aged-or-older fat people wearing loose clothing should not have to be abused in a way that young thin people wearing tight clothing would not.
Might loyal American citizens of Middle-eastern appearance resent being given "special" treatment at airport security gates? Maybe. But the solution is not to abuse everybody. We're at war. If you resemble potential enemies, you get special scrutiny. If you don't like it, then get all the other people who look like you to band together to detect and report on all the crazies among you who approve of blowing up airplanes or killing Americans by other methods, until the danger is eliminated.
It is insane to abuse ordinary harmless citizens in these ways, while tiptoeing around trying not to offend members of high-risk minority groups.
Why is it all right to offend me, and deeply, because I'm a white male and therefore in no officially blessed minority group (though white males, too, are a minority of the population), while officialdom is so stupidly careful not to offend members of other groups, even the ones which really do harbor or at least include those who mean America harm?
If this policy remains in force, then I'm going to try to start a class-action on behalf of large people who wear oversized clothing. Once we declare ourselves a victimized minority, I'm sure we can get something done.
Meanwhile, let's please equip all the airports with the scanners that let the guards see every detail of our naked bodies without our having to take our clothes off or be physically molested. I don't care if some security guard has to see the body shape I try to protect ordinary civilians from having to look at -- the guards are paid to put up with it.
Mr. Card, from 2002 to 2005 the twenty-four terrorist attacks perpetrated in the United States were all undertaken by domestic terrorists. Wikipedia summarizes a lengthy list of American terrorists who managed to destroy United States property and lives despite having an American accent and a light complexion. I hate to say it, but as long as we're assigning advance guilt to people based on their origins, you, sir, are a suspect. The fact that we hear less about these incidents of domestic terrorism than about those undertaken by foreign groups and individuals has less to do with their dedication and the extent of the damage and more to do with our predetermined caricature we drag out when we hear the word "terrorist," one you are apparently all-too-happy to adopt when it meets your purposes.
Yes, the 9/11 terror attacks were undertaken primarily by Arabs, though the sheer number of American terrorists dwarf the number of Muslims or Nigerians passing through American airports who apparently deserve special harassment and suspicion.
Orson Scott Card, for you to repeat this "we are at war" line while championing the illegal abuse of American freedoms undergone by this and the previous Administration in the name of "keeping us safe," to repeatedly deride "intellectuals" and "elites" for drinking the partisan Kool-Aid without considering the facts, and then to turn around in a shortsighted and arguably racist tirade after having this attitude come back and bite you in the back is nothing short of offensive.
Mr. Card, we either stand for principle or we stand for pragmatism. The simple fact is that we are a nation founded on the principles of habeas corpus and due process, who consider individuals innocent until proven guilty and apply all laws and policies uniformly across our own citizens or not at all. The simple fact is that the odds of any given person demonstrating themselves to be a terrorist are astronomically low, but dark or white (and plenty of terrorists exist in every shade), no man or woman deserves to be subjected to preferential treatment on the basis of the analysis of armchair analysts like yourself whose ego overrides their sense of shame. Your charge to people who have had the misfortune to be born dark-skinned outside of the United States to somehow solve the foreign terrorism problem while absolving yourself of the same responsibility on these shores is astonishing.
I give you, then, one challenge: In order to put our law enforcement energy back where you feel it belongs, in your own words: "get all the other people who look like you to band together to detect and report on all the crazies among you who approve of blowing up airplanes or killing Americans by other methods, until the danger is eliminated." I'm sure you'll agree that all people have a responsibility over those of their own race, and your efforts will help us to put our focus back where it belongs: on those who speak, look and act differently from yourself.
I write this in the hopes that you will see it, and though I suspect you have already attached any number of labels and presumption onto my words and myself I hope this can provide some perspective as you interpret the way others treat you and as you decide how others should be treated.
posted
I read that OSC article and really dissagreed with it too. I just didn't like the part where he pretty much stated it wasn't ok for him to be searched, and his rights needed to be protected while stating that it was perfectly fine for people of middle eastern heritage to be searched, and their rights were less important than his.
But he feels he was violated in an airport, and is entitled to write about it. I just think his rection and reasoning are selfish and a bit sad. That whole band together seemed like justification after the fact, and I hope he doesn't really think every middle-eastern person has terrorist contacts they simply ignore. I haven't read all of OSC's articles, but to me this one felt very wrong on multiple levels.
Posts: 856 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I agree because then terrorists will just want to use people of European decent or people who seem as generically white as possible while the authorities are chasing everyone who is brown. Not fond of this smilie but Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: "get all the other people who look like you to band together to detect and report on all the crazies among you who approve of blowing up airplanes or killing Americans by other methods, until the danger is eliminated."
"Until the danger is eliminated" is code for "NEVER", since such a danger can never be completely eliminated.
So, OSC is merely being a peddler of racist bullshit here. He's okay with other people being harassed, as long as they aren't white-looking people.
The sad thing is that even up to a few years ago, talking about the example of the early Pilgrims and their relationship with Indians, he argued about how important it was to know to see different individuals, rather than a mass of undifferentiated "Indians" -- and how the policy of discriminating against an entire group of people causes you to have more enemies than you would otherwise have.
Now he's supporting policies that would directly (and pretty much intentionally) produce even more enemies for America. Because it's okay to be inconvenience if you're a muslim or dark-skinned, it's not okay to be inconvenienced if you're a white Christian.
Where some of us see a wise policy of trying to differentiate between race and individual actions (exactly because we don't want a few *billion* enemies), he only sees "political correctness".
Going against any piece of wisdom he previously even remotely held.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, I was going to post the same thing. Who knows if there isn't some middle aged overweight white guy going by the name of Fatwa Fred trying to get on a plane somewhere?
The last flight I took I was pulled aside for a similar search. I'm 6'5 and 200 lbs, without a bulging gut to hide explosives in. I always tuck my shirts in and yet I was pulled aside for a special search. Was it annoying? Yes, and I don't like to be touched either. Was it pointless? Most likely, but who cares. It took maybe 30 seconds. Its just part of traveling by air now.
Posts: 197 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: The sad thing is that even up to a few years ago, talking about the example of the early Pilgrims and their relationship with Indians, he argued about how important it was to know to see different individuals, rather than a mass of undifferentiated "Indians" -- and how the policy of discriminating against an entire group of people causes you to have more enemies than you would otherwise have.
My opinion of OSC for so long was that he may judge people quickly, but he was remarkably astute on issues like race relations and illegal immigration. He had no tolerance for the racist doubletalk much of the Right was wallowing in, and went for accuracy in his depiction of the Battle School in defiance of the studio's wishes for a mostly caucasian student force.
Now it seems that he's fine with bigotry as long as you happen to be bigoted in the same ways that he is. Perpetual war, racial profiling, absurd marginalization of entire races and top-down laws under tortured logic to discriminate against gays - this is now okay as long as you're a member of OSC's hate list (liberals, elites, Middle Easterners, people who enjoy a little ambiguity in their films).
I confused his misguided need to be a modern Demosthenes with egalitarianism rather than just ego.
Posts: 127 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm glad I'm not the only one who felt this way. Even though I've disagreed with many of his posts in the past, I've continued reading them because I feel it's good to have an intelligent challenge to my own ideas. However, this latest post of his is just too much.
quote: We're at war. If you resemble potential enemies, you get special scrutiny. If you don't like it, then get all the other people who look like you to band together to detect and report on all the crazies among you who approve of blowing up airplanes or killing Americans by other methods, until the danger is eliminated.
Seriously? You're holding everyone that looks Middle Eastern responsible for tracking down and eliminating any threat of terrorism? The posts above have already pointed out the logical fallacies in that, but what about the ethics of it? That statement goes way beyond racial profiling. Now we're into plain bigotry.
Posts: 3 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
JPark: The part you quoted I disagreed with as well. I'm not sure exactly what Arab-Americans are supposed to in order to "report on the crazies." If there are no crazies that you are aware of, then what can you do? I don't think the Japanese Americans in WWII could be expected to have done it either, and yet because they couldn't we violated their civil rights in a very real way.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Someone asked me what I thought of the latest article.
I said "I could describe it as OSC saying he's outraged that he has to get patted down at the airport even though his skin isn't brown, and that's depressingly close to not even really being a strawman."
and they were like ew and I was all like yeah I know
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Might loyal American citizens of Middle-eastern appearance resent being given "special" treatment at airport security gates? Maybe. But the solution is not to abuse everybody. We're at war. If you resemble potential enemies, you get special scrutiny. If you don't like it, then get all the other people who look like you to band together to detect and report on all the crazies among you who approve of blowing up airplanes or killing Americans by other methods, until the danger is eliminated.
This would be like if our police department started openly racially profiling blacks when pulling over cars on the road, and when some black dude complained about it, they said "yo, if you don't like it, get all the other people who look like you to band together to detect and report on all the car thieves among your types, until car theft is eliminated.
Until then, QQ more."
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Might not be too bad if all the white people would also have to band together and report on all the Jihad Janes among them "until the danger is eliminated" Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder, given Card's rationale, if he would be okay with getting patted down when renting a Ryder truck.
Posts: 1087 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've long been repulsed my many of OSC's political views (and occasionally agreed with him,) but this article crosses a line from empty neo-conservative rhetoric to near bigotry. I respect Card immensely for his work in fiction, and still admire him in many ways but this article is disturbing to say the least. I'd really like to see OSC to take the views in the thread into consideration and respond to them.
Posts: 2 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
He won't. One of the most disturbing things about people who begin to think like this is that every opposing voice has a ready label - anti-American, "intellectual", ignorant, naïve - which makes opponents easier to demonize and ignore.
The most entrenched partisans among right-wingers have built up a universal caricature of leftists - we believe in "multiculturalism" to the destruction of "American" culture, do not believe in defending ourselves but would let those who wish us harm destroy us, and sing the praises of Leftist heroes without considering their weaknesses and mistakes. The Left's caricatures of the Right (Bible-thumping, ignorant or racist working-class whites who believe whatever Fox tells them) is equally simplistic and damaging to real discourse and debate.
More balanced representation of progressive beliefs requires more work and doesn't hold up in a partisan construct, and hence it must be abandoned (for example the beliefs that the "War on Terror" and illegal detention of prisoners create more terrorists by building on Jihadist interpretations of America's "evils"). In practice it's much easier for so many people (on both sides of the political spectrum) to build up their own self-centric model of the world and then build up a litany of tortuous and shortsighted rationalizations to support it.
Posts: 127 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
I willing to give OSC the benefit of the doubt that he was simply pissed of about having to be patted down and didn't take the time to consider the fact that targeting only one ethnic minority at airport security would in fact create an easy avenue for terrorist attacks, that white people are just as likely (and may in fact be more likely) to be domestic terrorists, and that his suggestion to "get all the other people who look like you to band together to detect and report on all the crazies among you who approve of blowing up airplanes or killing Americans by other methods, until the danger is eliminated" is unrealistic, presumptuous, and offensive. I'm not trying to excuse or justify his remarks, I'm just trying to say that I've posted things online in anger or frustration that I haven’t thought out well enough and later regretted it, and understand where Card may be coming from.
Posts: 2 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
See here's where I disagree with you guys, Mr. Card was presenting his viewpoint from the very narrow window of his personal 'profile' and how it fits the profile of a terrorist, and whether he should be subject to physical violation of personal space because he chooses to wear loose fitting clothing.
Yes, he mentions being 'non-Middle-eastern' which you've all taken as a license to cry foul, however the point in fact is that Mr. Card is an non-middle-eastern looking gentleman. There are profiles for terrorist, and while some terrorist probably don't 'fit' the profile perfectly (that's the nature of a profile versus oh, knowing the perpetrator personally) chances are reasonably decent that Mr. Card does not fit said profile.
We would all like to live in a world where we can be perfectly fair all the time, but when lives are at stake I'd prefer that we spend a little more time on the people who fit the 'profile' than those who don't.
Furthermore Mr. Card gave a nod to those "loyal American citizens of Middle-eastern appearance" and placed on record a sentiment that I wholeheartedly agree with.
If we're going to live in a world where everyone pretends that we're all equally likely to commit acts of terrorism, I would infinitely prefer to be 'undressed' visually than have anyone touch my body, uninvited.
Posts: 7 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
tngcas, did you read the bits of the thread about domestic terrorism in the United States? My point was that, even pragmatically speaking, Card's points didn't make any sense.
I don't understand OSC at all - first he writes all of this junk and another "Reviews" column where he basically trumps his views as fact - "artsy" cinema is worthless and only for "intellectuals" while "America doesn't want" to see anti-war movies. Then he writes one of the best World Watch columns he's ever written, a balanced and reasonable plea for understanding. He's still incapable of grasping the idea of Constitutional law and the rule of law (which leads to his endorsement of a destructive and morally anti-American foreign policy), though it's clear he is capable of putting together a good argument. Then why does he indignantly parrot talk radio points the other half of the time?
Maybe he picks his issues to be reasonable regarding, his favorite races (not liking Tyler Perry movies makes you racist while holding brown people indefinitely and assuming all "Gitmo" detainees to be terrorists in the face of evidence keeps us safe?). I've rarely met a writer who polarized me so much, and not in the way somebody who pushes you to think beyond yourself and consider ambiguity does - the way that you feel when your otherwise-smart friend says something astonishingly ignorant or foolish.
Posts: 127 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My goal in life is not to 'understand' OSC. My job as a free thinking citizen is take what he writes, ponder it, filter it through my own belief system, life experiences, political compass and reject or agree with whatever I choose.
I enjoy reading OSC because he, like any good professor, challenges the standard 'thinking' by asking us to seriously consider alternate points of view. I'll never condemn someone or 'judge' someone based on what they write. Writing is meant by its very nature to stimulate thought. Furthermore I'm happy to hear OSC write opinions that appear to be opposite, because most of my own opinions are more complicated than black and white which is what makes them appear conflicting.
Of course, I am by nature a 'devils-advocate' and you will frequently find me making arguments that have nothing to do with my personal beliefs and everything to do with encouraging people to argue their point of view to me, prove it to me and you stand a reasonable chance of winning me over. Even when I agree with the person I almost never just 'give in' to their point.
and my closing points are:
a) who are you to decide whether someone is or isn't capable of grasping an idea, just because someone doesn't parrot 'your' view?
b) Define American Foreign policy. There is no such thing as an Anti-American foreign policy. Foreign policy in American history has differed widely depending on the mood of politics and the American people.
Posts: 7 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, and yes, I realize I'm ignoring the little voice that says to sit down and stop talking.
If you disagree with OSC's premise or statements why is it so terribly difficult to say, for example:
I disagree with the following statement "quoted here" for x and x reasons and here is y and z to back up my opinion.
Instead of presenting the facts that back up your opinion you've made the issue OSC personally. Like I said before I'll never condemn someone for what they write but it is definitely something to consider if indeed your argument is the principle of the matter.
Posts: 7 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
tngcas, I would argue that the legal argument is the elephant in the room to the extent that to acknowledge it, if only to refute it, is necessary. In using the term "morally anti-American foreign policy" I'm referring to one which at least partially goes against our historical and stated goals of liberty and habeas corpus in the pursuit of cold pragmatism (whose actual efficacy is itself disputed).
I do believe that an open forum is possible and simple disagreement can be made. My disagreement with Card in this case wasn't so much the way he said things (though his categorical denunciations are aggravating) but what specifically was said. I do believe that amicable disagreements are possible (for example I'm not going to knock the way you read these columns) though I believe there are despicable arguments that cause untold human suffering and misery, and arguing to further this from a perspective of personal convenience and comfort is pretty gross.
Posts: 127 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've stopped reading World Watch. Reading other forumites' commentaries on World Watch is viscerally nauseating enough.
I can understand "We're at war, sacrifices need to be made." Even if I disagree with portions of the premise under the present circumstances (it often seems that we're "at war" for the sake of legal, ethical, and rhetorical convenience), I can empathize with where such a sentiment would come from and even see some nobility in it.
But, "We're at war, and I'm willing to see whatever sacrifices need to be made borne by other people?" How does that sentiment make it to page without the author doing a double-take?
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clumpy knows not of what he writes, unfortunately. The cfr link refers to
"twenty-four terrorist incidents that occurred between 2002 and 2005 were carried out by domestic extremists, according to the FBI."
He fails to dig into this list of 24 incidents.
7 acts of domestic "terrorism" in 2002:
heavy equipment spray painted with "ELF, in the protection of mother earth". Unknown subjects released 250 mink from a fur farm.
2 deaths from terrorism within the US in 2002, both a result of the 8th act of domestic terrorism listed in the FBI report. It is actually classed as "international terrorism" but it is one of the 24 counted in the cfr report. Hesham Mohamed Ali Hedayat shot 2 people at the El Al ticket counter in LAX before being killed by an El Al security officer. "A worldwide investigation determined that Hadayat's religious and political beliefs were the primary motivation for the attack". Also in 2002, muslim jihadists set off three bombs on October 12th in Bali killing 202 and injuring as many as 305.
6 acts of domestic "terrorism" in 2003: ELF responsible for 3 acts of arson or vandalism. The other 3 by extremists within the animal rights movement.
No deaths or serious injuries resulting from these domestic "terrorism" acts in 2003. In 2003 international terrorist attacks by members of violent jihadist movements killed 46 people and wounded at least 340.
In 2004 there were 5 domestic "terrorism" incidents. No deaths or serious injuries resulted from these "terrorism" indidents. 3 were ELF damaging cars at dealerships and burning homes under construction in WA with this note: "Consider these 13 as a warning. Walk on the edge. Green equals no burn all others are fair game. Bush is a rapist. ELF". 1 was the ALF attacking the animal science facility at BYU. The fifth was a white supremecist who firebombed an empty synagogue causing "mostly smoke damage". In that same year al-Qaida launched at least 6 international attacks killing more than 35 people.
In 2005 there were 5 acts of domestic "terrorism" all by members of ELF or ALF and associated animal rights extremists. 3 preventions listed in the report for 2005 all involved jihadists or al-Quaida supporters. No deaths or serious injuries resulted from the 5 domestic acts of "terrorism". On the other hand, on July 7th, 2005, in London, muslim jihadists killed 52 and injured 700 others. Later that year muslim jihadists killed 22 and injured 102 in October.
So the 24 terrorism incidents carried out by "domestic extremists" on US soil from 2002 to 2005 were (22 of them) animal rights or environmentalist wackos destroying property with what appears to be the intent to not kill or injure any person. Probably white anglo saxon liberal democrats all of them - kind of like Bill Ayers. 1 was a crazy Aryan Nation wacko who caused smoke damage to a synagogue. 1 was a crazy muslim jihadist who killed fewer people than he was trying to at LAX. During that same time muslim jihadists with ties to al-Qaida killed ~360 and wounded ~1450.
In September 2001 attacks on US soil by muslim jihadists with ties to al-Qaida killed 2976 people and injured countless others. US stocks lost $1.4 trillion in value that week. 430k job-months and $2.8 billion in wages were lost as a result of the 9/11 attacks just in NYC. The GDP of NYC declined $27.3 billion as a result. Almost 32 million square feet of office space was damaged or destroyed. The economic damages to the WTC site alone were ~$32 billion. Insurance losses exceeded $30 billion.
To compare the meager list of ancient terrorist attacks on US soil from the wikipedia article and the FBI's list of 24 domestic "terrorism" attacks from 2002 to 2005 to the global war that muslim jihadists are waging on the US and other Western nations is laughable. There is no comparison. Shame on you for trying to make one. Tell that to the 200 people who jumped to their deaths from the towers of the world trade center. That there are on rare occasions muslim jihadist sympathizers who are ugly white women does not weaken Card's point in the slightest.
John Hansen
Posts: 398 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Regardless of what you think about what he said, it's pretty clear that the current profiling methods have serious issues... although in fairness, they are better than they were when they started.
I remember soon after 9/11 when random checks began, all these celebrities and politicians made a great fuss about how they were checked just like everyone else and that proved the system worked.
What they really proved is that politicians and celebrities are idiots. They were selected "randomly" because the guard in question wanted to meet someone famous.
Choosing who to search based on the color of their skin is wrong. At the same time however, it's probably far more likely statistically speaking that certain types of travelers are more likely to be nefarious cretins. That doesn't mean they're terrorists, only that they're criminals. Profiling that type (based on price of ticket, when ordered, checked bags, one-way or round trip, coach or business, etc.) combined with other ethno-/socio-economical data, probably would create a better method.
Of course, so would, "Every fifth person, take off your shoes."
Posts: 50 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JohnHansen: Clumpy knows not of what he writes, unfortunately. The cfr link refers to
"twenty-four terrorist incidents that occurred between 2002 and 2005 were carried out by domestic extremists, according to the FBI."
He fails to dig into this list of 24 incidents.
7 acts of domestic "terrorism" in 2002:
heavy equipment spray painted with "ELF, in the protection of mother earth". Unknown subjects released 250 mink from a fur farm.
2 deaths from terrorism within the US in 2002, both a result of the 8th act of domestic terrorism listed in the FBI report. It is actually classed as "international terrorism" but it is one of the 24 counted in the cfr report. Hesham Mohamed Ali Hedayat shot 2 people at the El Al ticket counter in LAX before being killed by an El Al security officer. "A worldwide investigation determined that Hadayat's religious and political beliefs were the primary motivation for the attack". Also in 2002, muslim jihadists set off three bombs on October 12th in Bali killing 202 and injuring as many as 305.
6 acts of domestic "terrorism" in 2003: ELF responsible for 3 acts of arson or vandalism. The other 3 by extremists within the animal rights movement.
No deaths or serious injuries resulting from these domestic "terrorism" acts in 2003. In 2003 international terrorist attacks by members of violent jihadist movements killed 46 people and wounded at least 340.
In 2004 there were 5 domestic "terrorism" incidents. No deaths or serious injuries resulted from these "terrorism" indidents. 3 were ELF damaging cars at dealerships and burning homes under construction in WA with this note: "Consider these 13 as a warning. Walk on the edge. Green equals no burn all others are fair game. Bush is a rapist. ELF". 1 was the ALF attacking the animal science facility at BYU. The fifth was a white supremecist who firebombed an empty synagogue causing "mostly smoke damage". In that same year al-Qaida launched at least 6 international attacks killing more than 35 people.
In 2005 there were 5 acts of domestic "terrorism" all by members of ELF or ALF and associated animal rights extremists. 3 preventions listed in the report for 2005 all involved jihadists or al-Quaida supporters. No deaths or serious injuries resulted from the 5 domestic acts of "terrorism". On the other hand, on July 7th, 2005, in London, muslim jihadists killed 52 and injured 700 others. Later that year muslim jihadists killed 22 and injured 102 in October.
So the 24 terrorism incidents carried out by "domestic extremists" on US soil from 2002 to 2005 were (22 of them) animal rights or environmentalist wackos destroying property with what appears to be the intent to not kill or injure any person. Probably white anglo saxon liberal democrats all of them - kind of like Bill Ayers. 1 was a crazy Aryan Nation wacko who caused smoke damage to a synagogue. 1 was a crazy muslim jihadist who killed fewer people than he was trying to at LAX. During that same time muslim jihadists with ties to al-Qaida killed ~360 and wounded ~1450.
In September 2001 attacks on US soil by muslim jihadists with ties to al-Qaida killed 2976 people and injured countless others. US stocks lost $1.4 trillion in value that week. 430k job-months and $2.8 billion in wages were lost as a result of the 9/11 attacks just in NYC. The GDP of NYC declined $27.3 billion as a result. Almost 32 million square feet of office space was damaged or destroyed. The economic damages to the WTC site alone were ~$32 billion. Insurance losses exceeded $30 billion.
To compare the meager list of ancient terrorist attacks on US soil from the wikipedia article and the FBI's list of 24 domestic "terrorism" attacks from 2002 to 2005 to the global war that muslim jihadists are waging on the US and other Western nations is laughable. There is no comparison. Shame on you for trying to make one. Tell that to the 200 people who jumped to their deaths from the towers of the world trade center. That there are on rare occasions muslim jihadist sympathizers who are ugly white women does not weaken Card's point in the slightest.
John Hansen
I agree with you that Islamic terrorism is a far greater problem than domestic terrorism. However, that does not justify discrimination against an entire ethnic group. We were founded on the principle that all men are created equal. Violating a sacred American principle on such vague grounds is truly disgusting.
Posts: 19 | Registered: Jul 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to take into account the poor souls who have to do said patting down. I'm sure it's just as uncomfortable for them to have to profile other American citizens and go through a whole process to allow them access to travel. I wouldn't doubt that at some point each one thinks to himself that the person they're frisking, scanning, etc. could just as easily be one of their friends or family. Myself, I don't mind waiting a little longer to add some security for the other people in this country. I don't have much faith that this profiling idea is actually going to weed out alot of terrorists, but maybe it'll at least be good as a deterent.
Posts: 115 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
