It is beginning to dawn on me that a number of our fellows, such as Ms. Karen DeCoster on LewRockwell.com’s blog are starting to make some odd assertions. I guess we could say this post was an example of jumping to conclusions at the mention of a breaking news story, but that is not the issue; that the ‘firecracker’ device happened to be a much more dangerous chemical cocktail is not either. The problem in my eyes is that DeCoster’s first reaction is not “Was anyone harmed? I am glad no one was killed” or even “Good thing the plane came out unscathed”, it was one of “Damn, this probably means more state incursions” (not a direct quote). I can’t really criticize her for that, since I thought the same thing, but has anyone thought how libertarian positions must sound unsympathetic to outsiders? Maybe its just a certain form of bitterness that has come to take root as the same old blunders are perpetuated in the name of bringing ‘peace’. I think a more sensible post would have been to make these points:
That it was the passengers who stopped the aggressor, not the government’s agents, despite all their various methods.
That the underlying ease of any hijacking is not by having a weapon, but by the threat of one… All the “9/11” hijackers needed were 5 dollar box cutters and some mental persuasion. No security measure can stop this. The government cannot address this problem, as it would mean not needing all that advanced airport security equipment after all.
I didn’t proof read before posting as I am in a bit of a rush, so don’t be too hard on me!
The problem is similar to one of describing how we don’t have a right to health care. On the surface, many of our positions seem unsympathetic and inhumane. It takes the curious or interested mind to learn more and better understand.
The trick is to show how their position is unsympathetic and that ours actually serves society (and for the most part, individuals) better.
Other than extreme gullibility/naivete, I see no good reason to believe that any part of this convenient , “just in time for xmas”- “muslim terrorist with explosive device on a plane” ; complete with extra-convenient “Todd Beamer style” heroic passenger intervention , mainstream media concoction is actually true.
More than likely nothing more than government/media lies to reinforce a flagging support for “the war on terror”, and increase TV viewer numbers and ad revenues. Probably total B.S.
De Koster really should know better- however given, on a related issue, stuff like this [ LVMI moderator laminustacitus on the official 911 story]:
“Why would you believe that they are lying? Believing that they are telling the truth is the logical starting ground. Furthermore, all the pieces fit if one believes that they are telling the truth.”
De Kosters baseless assumptions about the truth of this particular Xmas story are hardly surprising- pretty much run-of- the-mill for “libertarians”, actually.[:)]
I’ve already had several people tell me that this was a set up and that I was naive to blog that it was a real incident. I’m glad to consider this point of view, but shouldn’t there be some evidence, something that makes one wonder, some facts that don’t add up? I’ve yet to hear anyone mention what they might be. I really don’t get this idea that all terrorism must be the big fake a priori. It seems to me that lots of people in the world have what they believe are some pretty good reasons for wanting to inflict random violence on U.S. targets.
Given the timing the “threat warnings” during the Bush admin, and how close this was to giftmas, AND the new rules just implemented as a result, I’m seriously leaning toward set-up. Are we seriously to believe that a Big Bad Terrorist Network could have such a crappy bomb-making ability? Seriously? It stinks of PsyOp.
Honestly, it is easier denying things like this, and other terrorist attacks than having to deal with a world where such things actually do happen, where the government might actually be trying to do some good and they are not the sole villain. If history does not fit one’s judgments of value, then simply rewrite it.
I’m sure there are cops who want to protect little old ladies. I’m sure there thieves who simply want to feed their families. But good deeds don’t legitimize the state. But neither is this to say that they state are the only criminals. So I suppose what is going on is criminals fighting criminals. I don’t think there is necessarily anything wrong with that, but why must they do it with our money and our other property?
According to Fox News, a passenger lunged at the terrorist’s neck, choked him, and then he was tied up in bussiness class. This act and the TSA (“BEST SECURITY IN THE WORLD!” were cheered on by Greta Van Scientologist, and comrades. One of the guest even started exclaiming “AHA! Now we have to take into account that this guy was a Radical Islam extremist. This political correctness has to stop, and we cannot be called bigots any longer.”
I see this story for what it is: more “America Fuck Yeah!” war fodder and liberty poison.
What evidence is there that the event actually happened? Only media heresay [colored images "authenticated " with verbal histrionics etc.] as far as I know.
Has such “evidence” [and witnesses] , or any other purported “evidence” been presented in a court of law and subject to rigorous cross- examination by skilled defense attorneys before a jury? [obviously not- to answer my own question![:)]]
Why is the “perp” assumed to be guilty already [possibly even by yourself] at this stage, and the event to have happened in the manner reported by the media at large at this time?[anybody here heard of Randolph Hearst?]
Meanwhile, photographic “evidence” I have examined to date[not posted here at this time, will post if asked] proves to be “troublesome” to say the least.
Also, the “Todd Beamer” style heroic cutout [one “Jasper Schuringa”], has close ties to the media as a “video director/producer”, which is jarringly reminiscent of all of the authors of the supposed 911 “real” videos that showed miracle planes able to fly through/inside 500,000 ton steel and concrete buildings, without slowing down and with no parts falling off upon impact.[:)]
All in all, the entire affair stinks![:O]
P.S. the 911 photo “still” of AA 175 posted above by another poster is a merely a still from a computer generated [i.e fake] movie, not a real photo - just ask Austrian Economics prof. and LewRockwell.com contributor Dr Morgan Reynolds [ I’m sure you have the means to contact him so I’ll post no link here.]
I agree, De Coster strikes me as one of the more strident folks who contribute to LRC. When I heard the attacker was “al-Qaeda” from Nigeria, however, I had a hunch that CIA has probably had long-time involvement in Nigeria. I Googled it and, sure enough, they have been operating extensively in Nigeria since the 60’s. This attack, like all terror attacks, will have the effect of terrorizing the populace. But we (we = anti-statists) must remember that the foremost agent of terror is, and always has been, the State. I’ve been watching videos of the conflict between the Israeli state and the Palestinian state. The human cost of tolerating the existence of states is too terrible to reckon.
But I agree with you that it is of no use to speak to the statist supermajority about this. Pointing out the failure of our already absurdly draconian airport security measures as an indictment of socialized security is much more constructive.
Persecuted, no. But annoyed that my comment was spun, absolutely.
The conflict there is not between the two states, but rather between Hamas and Israel, only recently after Hamas won a majority in the Palestinian government. The situation cannot be boiled down into a state v. state conflict. Without the existence of a state, it does not mean that there would not have been a Zionist movement, without a state there very well might have been Hamas, without the state this conflict may very well still have occurred.