|
July 18, 2005
Why "make it easy" for terrorists?
In a perfect example of how the fear of terrorism combines with anti-technology prejudice, some "experts" have been calling for restrictions on cell phone technology: mobile telephones have a lot of features that make them attractive to would-be bombers. Making them unable to send or receive calls helps, but it doesn't disable the precise timers, or make the batteries themselves less explosive.Great. Maybe if we return to stone age technology, we'll all be safer. Fortunately, this "expert" has been fisked by another cellphone expert possessed of some common sense: Well, the media love to confuse cause and effect and blame technology for all our woes. Despite the fact that potential terrorists could indeed use other tools (like alarm clocks) to set off bombs, we have an attempted lynching of the mobile phone.It's like blaming the internet. And there's a lot of that going around too. Not only are simple electronic timers already available in the form of tiny alarm clocks, but ready-to-wire delay timer eproms are freely available at Radio Shack. Never mind; the goal here is to "make it harder" for terrorists by making it harder for everyone else. But I'll go one further than this expert. Rather than blaming the cell phones which can be used as timers, I blame the targets themselves for being there! CLOSE THE SUBWAYS! STOP ALL TRAINS! CLOSE ALL AIRPORTS! Why not? After all, architectural experts like James Howard Kunstler (and his friends at the New York Times) blame tall buildings for being there, and propose eliminating them or making them smaller. Isn't the same logic equally applicable to trains and subways? So why stop short with feel-good, band-aid approaches like banning cell phones? There are a lot of things we could do to make things harder if not impossible for terrorists. As pointed out above, after Timothy McVeigh used a rented truck, nothing was done to prevent such a disgraceful incident from happening again. All truck and car bombing could easily be stopped -- right now -- by banning all cars and trucks. Didn't our ancestors get along for thousands of years without the colturned things? I say it's a small price to pay to make the world safe. I realize that this wouldn't stop pedestrian terrorists from blowing themselves up in crowds, but again, that's just another problem with another simple solution: Really, it doesn't take much imagination to stop terrorists. It requires only that we get over this American obsession with the freedom thing. It's about time we start asking the hard questions, such as what good is freedom if it merely supplies targets for terrorists? If we eliminate the targets by making these and other necessary sacrifices, only then can we be truly safe. I don't see how the terrorists could win. posted by Eric on 07.18.05 at 09:21 AM
Comments
That's the solution.... ban people. No more people, no more terrorism.... Grumpy · July 18, 2005 09:31 PM This is crazy. What about the passengers on Flight 93 who were able to call their loved ones on 9/11, find out about the attacks, and act against the hijackers? Johnathan · July 19, 2005 07:40 AM Good Service Frank Johnson · July 22, 2005 07:12 AM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
War For Profit
How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight Wind Boom Isaiah Washington, victim Hippie Shirts A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists PETA agrees -- with me! The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
To take it even further, human beings as such are tempting targets for terrorists. Blame it on Adam and Eve, or the Devil. Or their Creator.
Or, if we don't want to be blasphemous, then maybe we could go back to blaming terrorism on terrorists instead of on their targets or their tools.
I once read this in the John Birch Society's American Opinion:
"A Communist assassinates the President with a rifle. Liberal solution: Outlaw all rifles. Conservative solution: Outlaw all Communists."
The style of that!
Which reminds me of an old story that Professor Willmoore Kendall (the style of his name!) liked to tell and that I often like to think about. He was attending some kind of conference on ways to deal with the problem of Communists in America. The Negro janitor who was cleaning his room asked him:
"Professah, is it true -- is it true dat -- dat dere's people in New York who want to - to destroy de guvamint of de United States?"
"Yes, Oliver, that is true."
"Den -- den why don't we just lock 'em up?"
And Willmoore Kendall remarked that there was more wisdom in that Negro janitor than in all the other political science professors and civil libertarians he had been arguing with during that conference.
The style of that!.... General Oliver Willmoore Kendall....