June 14th, 2007


Why Does Bruce Schneier Hate America????

Oh dear, there he goes:
The recently publicized terrorist plot to blow up John F. Kennedy International Airport, like so many of the terrorist plots over the past few years, is a study in alarmism and incompetence: on the part of the terrorists, our government and the press.

Terrorism is a real threat, and one that needs to be addressed by appropriate means. But allowing ourselves to be terrorized by wannabe terrorists and unrealistic plots -- and worse, allowing our essential freedoms to be lost by using them as an excuse -- is wrong.
The "Miami 7," caught last year for plotting -- among other things -- to blow up the Sears Tower, were another incompetent group: no weapons, no bombs, no expertise, no money and no operational skill. And don't forget Iyman Faris, the Ohio trucker who was convicted in 2003 for the laughable plot to take out the Brooklyn Bridge with a blowtorch. At least he eventually decided that the plan was unlikely to succeed.

I don't think these nut jobs, with their movie-plot threats, even deserve the moniker "terrorist." But in this country, while you have to be competent to pull off a terrorist attack, you don't have to be competent to cause terror. All you need to do is start plotting an attack and -- regardless of whether or not you have a viable plan, weapons or even the faintest clue -- the media will aid you in terrorizing the entire population.

The most ridiculous JFK Airport-related story goes to the New York Daily News, with its interview with a waitress who served Defreitas salmon; the front-page headline blared, "Evil Ate at Table Eight."

[ cf Portrait of the Modern Terrorist as an Idiot ]
Oh ME! Oh MY!!!

Clearly when we allow waitress's to so Openly Support International Terrorism, WE MUST START DEEPER INVESTIGATIONS into all of the sleeper cells...

Clearly if Americans are Not Terrorized Enough Yet, we MUST keep on moving them to the "Left Behind" phase, where only the True Believers Will Be SAVED!!!! All the Rest Are GOING TO BURN IN HELL!!!!

Or at least be next to the great deep fat fryer of The French!!!

Oh say it is not so....

Oh dear, Oh ME!!! Oh My!!! Main stream media freaks out
Violent Muslim, Christian and Jewish extremists invoke the same rhetoric of "good" and "evil" and the best way to fight them is to tackle the problems that drive people to extremism, according to a report obtained by Reuters.

It said extremists from each of the three faiths often have tangible grievances -- social, economic or political -- but they invoke religion to recruit followers and to justify breaking the law, including killing civilians and members of their own faith.

The report was commissioned by security think tank EastWest Institute ahead of a conference on Thursday in New York titled "Towards a Common Response: New Thinking Against Violent Extremism and Radicalization." The report will be updated and published after the conference.

The authors compared ideologies, recruitment tactics and responses to violent religious extremists in three places -- Muslims in Britain, Jews in Israel and Christians in the United States.

"What is striking ... is the similarity of the worldview and the rationale for violence," the report said.

[ cf Religious extremists in 3 faiths share views ]
I sure hope they did not pay a whole lot of money on that report...

hum... I should of course high light
It said that while Muslims were often perceived by the West as "the principal perpetrators of terrorist activity," there are violent extremists of other faiths. Always focusing on Muslim extremists alienates mainstream Muslims, it said.

The report said it was important to examine the root causes of violence by those of different faiths, without prejudice.

"It is, in each situation, a case of 'us' versus 'them,"' it said. "That God did not intend for civilization to take its current shape; and that the state had failed the righteous and genuine members of that nation, and therefore God's law supersedes man's law."

[ op cit (emphasis mine)]
The comedy of course is that in america we do not like to think of the core problem of dangerous armed religious wackJobs who opt to take their 'textual literalisms', well, gosh, literally.

What if americans had to really decide which they wanted to really have? Their 'civic religion'? with the threat to the literalists that it provides? or the Literal Religion, with the threat to the civil society.

OR is there a third way?