Posted On: Friday - September 13th 2019 9:27PM MST
In Topics:   US Police State  Americans  Liberty/Libertarianism  US Feral Government
"Panties?" "Check!" "Bra?" "Check!"
"If you've got nothing to hide, what are you worried about?!"
(We are all supposed to understand that all of us could be terrorists.
Diversity in terrorism - that's the ticket.)
Before I even start this post, I want to assure, or quite likely alarm, readers, that I do not necessarily buy into the whole story of what went down on 9/11. As far as there being no airplanes, well, no way on that. As far as buildings being blown up, I just don't have the knowledge it takes to decide. Yes, there are many videos out there, but they conflict, and the ones that are on the subjects I DO know about don't convince me on US Gov't subterfuge.
I'll say this, the US Gov't, if nothing else, took great advantage of the 9/11 attack, if not having already known of something being up and letting it happen. I have just about the same view of the nefariousness of the Deep State of the US, as I would if I bought into the 9/11-performed-by-US-Gov't theory whole hog.
Let me continue under the assumption that those 19 guys flew planes into buildings, at least in NY City. This post will end up being not much more than a bunch of excerpts, already written by myself and others, to get my point across.
Steve Sailer had a post on 9/11 2 days back that referred to an article he wrote right that day in 2001 criticizing George W. Bush and his people for pushing for a law for laxer airport security about 1 year earlier. This was in order to not offend arabs so much, see? From original article (on web archives - pretty cool):
Bush’s Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta has said that “the security procedures [in a then-current FAA screening assistance computer program] are not based on the race, ethnicity, religion or gender of passengers” Yet, the system is widely believed to use other information – such as whether the traveler is going to or coming from the Middle East – that tends to “disparately impact” Arab and Muslims.Yep, there was that same great Sailer style 18 years ago!
None of the ethnic rights groups, however, has offered any data to dispute the widespread assumption that in the three decades since the Palestine Liberation Organization invented skyjacking, a disproportionate number of hijackers and plane bombers have had Middle Eastern ties.
Nonetheless, the Bush Administration publicly agrees with the civil rights organizations that even a nonracial airport profiling system that had merely a disparate impact on Arabs and Muslims would be objectionable. Secretary Mineta said, “We also want to assure that in practice, the system does not disproportionately select members of any particular minority group.” Of course, if Arabs and Muslims are disproportionately more likely to hijack airliners, and the profiling system does not end up disproportionately targeting them, then system wouldn’t work very well at preventing hijackings.
Now, under the recent article on unz, a very intelligent and common-sensible commenter wrote the following:
Hindsight is 20/20. I’m not sure what Tuohey [the ticket agent at Boston Logan Airport who checked-in one of the terrorists] could have done even if he had acted on his suspicions.Here is my reply:
Maybe they would have found the box cutters if they searched them. Maybe they would have talked their way onto the plane anyway. I assume they had cover stories prepared. Not sure what Hindus and Sikhs have to do with anything.
The law that Bush advocated changing [on making security laxer] hadn’t actually changed as of 9/11 so it had no influence on the outcome.
Foresight would only have needed to be 20/40 or so, or whatever it takes to look through sights of one’s CC pistol and take care of this thing before it got out of hand (as it did). If Americans weren’t already being disarmed at airports around the country, we’d probably not be discussing this at all. (The press likes to hide feel-good gun stories, such as regular Americans easily defeating a terrorism attempt.) The world could have been different.The comment, again, quite reasonably, replies:
I’m not sure it’s a great idea for EVERYONE on board to be carrying, but nowadays, many pilots carry a .40 caliber H&K automatic as a sidearm when they are on the flight deck, having been thru the Federal training program for this purpose. Also, it seems to me that sworn police officers and such who open carry every day as part of their jobs could just as well be trusted to carry when they are flying. Had the pilots on 9/11 been so trained and armed or there had been some cops on board, I’m sure they could have taken care of things on the spot and saved thousands of lives.That's just it, though. Everyone is fighting the last battle, and even with the few gun-carrying pilots - not more than 1 in 50 or 100, and occasional Air Marshalls, the same problem, bad guys with weapons, will be not likely solved in that manner.
But no one was thinking that way on 9/11. Hijackings had always been for ransom – take me to Havana or release some Palestinians or something like that. They were never on kamikaze missions. The training was “comply with the hijackers and no one will get hurt.”
Here's another problem with that last reply. Why do people get this idea that the authorities are particularly better, if at all, at defending their fellow Americans? In fact, when they keep using that term "civilians" for non-LEOs (the new term - no longer just a horoscope sign), are they hinting that they are the American standing army we aren't supposed to have? I'd much rather have a non-cop regular gun-carrying American for 2 reasons:
1) A non-cop had much more to lose by doing something rash with his gun. The left is just itching to find those rare cases in which he might be in the wrong. A cop would get away with leave-with-pay for stuff that would put a regular American in jail for years!
2) The non cop is very likely a better shot. Do you remember that story of cops in NY City a few years back firing 11 shots and never hitting a "perp" from about 10 ft. away? They never hit the perp, I'm saying - bystanders beware! A concealed-carry American would likely spend much more time at the range.
All this trust in the authorities is a bad thing? I'm gonna add what could be number (3) above: Who says that the guy with a badge is less likely to be up to no good than another American? Why would one think that, because of all that rigorous background checking by... oh, other cops? Baaaa.
I mentioned the Police State, even if supposedly on our side, fighting the last battle. You've seen the stupidity. For years now, they've been controlling the quantity of liquids one can bring, just based on ONE incident. Does nobody reckon that 5 guys can each bring their allowed quantities and share? It's nice to share. That and other stuff like it is just reactionary security theater. The bad guys can make a weapon out of anything. It'd be best if any possible good guys are allowed to defend against this.
I realized after already getting into this post that I'd written my conclusion in that 2-year old post from 9/11/17, so here it is again:
Wouldn't this country, and the whole world possibly, be so much different now, if the following simple thing happened 16 years ago today: What if the airport-based security guys at that time were NOT disarming passengers? What if only 2-3 passengers on each of those airliners had been armed (very likely were they living per US Constitution Amendment II)? Can you imagine how proud Americans would have felt and still would, had the planes been defended through quick dispatch of the RWB's (Ragheads With Boxcutters)? Not only that, but the rest of the world would be mostly envious, some angry, that this was a country that could not be messed with as there was still "a rifle behind every blade of grass".
The Middle East was invaded willy-nilly and the US population was coerced into becoming a police state, all because of 19 guys with boxcutters? Is that what I'm telling you?