Lying to ourselves
 

Lying to ourselves
By RALPH PETERS
December 29, 2009

On Christmas Day, an Islamist fanatic tried to blow up an airplane whose passengers were mostly Christians. And we helped.

Our government gets no thanks for preventing a tragedy. Only the bomber's ineptitude preserved the lives of nearly 300 innocents.

How did we help Umar Abdulmutallab, a wealthy Muslim university graduate who decided that Allah wanted him to slaughter Christians on their most joyous holiday?

By continuing to lie to ourselves.

Although willing -- at last -- to briefly use the word "terror," yesterday President Obama still refused to make a connection between the action, the date and Islam.

Was it just a ticketing accident that led to a bombing attempt on Christmas? Was it all about blackout dates and frequent-flyer miles?

It wasn't. You know it. And I know it. But our government refuses to know it. Despite vast databases crammed with evidence, our leaders -- of both parties -- still refuse to connect Islamist terrorism with Islam.

Our insistence that "Islam's a religion of peace" would have been cold comfort to the family members of those passengers had the bomb detonated as planned.

Abdulmutallab's own father warned our diplomats that his son had been infected by Islamist extremism. Our diplomats did nothing. Why? Because (despite a series of embassy bombings) the State Department dreads linking terrorism to Islam.

Contrast our political correctness with Abdulmutallab's choice of Christmas for his intended massacre. Our troops stand down on Muslim holidays. A captive terrorist merely has to claim that a soldier dog-eared a Koran, and it's courts-martial all around.

We proclaim that the terrorists "don't represent Islam." OK, whom do they represent? The Franciscans? We don't get to decide what's Islam and what isn't. Muslims do. And far too many of them approve of violent jihad.

It gets worse. Instead of focusing on the religious zeal and inspiration of our enemies and how such motivations change the game, our "terrorism experts" agonize over whether such beasts as Abdulmutallab or Maj. Hasan, the Fort Hood assassin for Allah, are really members of al Qaeda or not.

As a Sunday Post editorial pointed out, al Qaeda's far more than a formal organization; it's an idea, a cause. If a terrorist says he's al Qaeda, he is, even if he doesn't have a union card from Jihadi Local 632.

We're dealing with a global Muslim movement, not a Masons' lodge.

And that "global" aspect is especially worrying. Despite limited Special Operations strikes beyond our recognized combat zones, we still don't accept the nature of the threat from jet-set jihadis. Our leaders and our military are obsessed with holding ground in Afghanistan -- even though al Qaeda's growth areas are in Yemen and Africa.

We voluntarily tie ourselves down, while our enemies focus on mobility. Worse, we've convinced ourselves that development aid (the left's all-purpose medicine) is the key to defeating al Qaeda.

That's utter nonsense. Abdulmutallab's a rich kid. He didn't come from a deprived background, bearing the grievances of the slum. He's a graduate of a top English university. And Osama bin Laden's from a super-rich family. How does building a footbridge in Afghanistan deter them?

Most of our home-grown Islamist terrorists hail from middle-class families -- such monsters as Maj. Hasan or the Virginia virgin-chasers under arrest in Pakistan (where jail conditions are a lot worse than at Guantanamo -- can't we just leave 'em there?).

This isn't a revolt of the wretched of the earth. These terrorists are the Muslim-fanatic versions of Bill Ayers and the Weathermen, pampered kids unhappy with the world. Al Qaeda's big guns are rebelling against privilege. There's a lot of Freud in this fundamentalism.

Spoiled brats remade their god in their own vengeful image. And we have to kill them. This one really is a zero-sum game.

We're not just fighting men but a plague of faith.

Until Washington accepts that, we'll continue to reap a low return on our investments of blood and treasure.

On Christmas Day, a Muslim fanatic attempted to butcher hundreds of Christians (dead Jews would've been a bonus). Our response? Have airport security analyze the contents of grandma's mini-bottle of shampoo -- we don't want to "discriminate."

With our lies, self-deception and self-flagellation, we're terror's little helpers.

Ralph Peters' latest book is "The War After Armageddon."

SOURCE:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion...IQIrjE0oaYch2K

Well put.
 

It's a scary thought. Just about every word of that is true. I love my country and will defend her with alll my being, but i hope the day comes when our government realizes that we wont always be so lucky in the future.

I said this already about nothing said in the news about the Attempted bombing and it being done on Christmas Day.

Why is this.. For me it's just like about everything MOST of DOS people do. Sit in their Offices and ride home scared out of their minds in an armored car or van with a driver hoping they will make it home. Even if they are in a US Friendly Country. They push paperwork and not truly meeting with the Local Government or Local nationals.

USAID and other DOS departments will never go out to the places that really need the infrastructure improved, but stay in the capital cities and hire locals to do their work for them and they submit the reports on the DoS mission. So in turn they don't know what is really happen and alienates themselves for the real world.

I loved watching and hearing what Tom Ridge had to say on CBS Early Show this morning. When asked about the new 1 hour prior to landing rule and if it is effective measure. Wish I could find and transcript of it.

BLUF - He made it clear he thought it was a Joke.

Is it within the realm of possibilities
 

that an organization could bring the TSA and accompanying LEO's to their knees by simply creating a massive invasion of security personnel in airports accross the country? Say 10 individuals ea., in most all of the 300+ airports.

All that would be required, would be 12 D sized batteries, wire, elec. tape, handbag full of wooden blocks wraped in Ductape, with the words "INERT - Training Purposes Only" and speak no English.

It would certaining make the news.

The system is broke, and I'd rather see it tested to a failing point, then see it fail after 30,000 or 300,000 suffer needlessly.

A lot of people are lying to themselves, but these lies will only go on as long as the enemy keeps fumbling the ball. A successful plot along the lines of 2006 bomb plot (multiple airplanes over the Atlantic) and we will not be able to hide the truth from ourselves. I dread the day these guys get their game together but eventually they will succeed at taking down more airliners.

Didn't we do something like this once. More the half the fake bombs made it thru screening. I remember seeing pictures of the fake bombs. They were incredibly obvious. Alarm clocks, sticks of dynamite and wires sticking out of them. Yet many still made it thru detection.

For the most part,Airport security screeners are "affirmative action" hires,and I mean,just looking at them,you can tell they dont give a shit. It is just a Gubberment job, so they can suck on Uncles teat fo' ben-ee-fits. They have no pride in their appearance or uniform,which translates over ,directly,to not caring about their job.

Are there a "few" who try and care? Sure. Are they they majority tho; No.

Gut the Airport screeners,to start with, and hire people who show pride in appearance and job. Do not go the "Politically Correct" route and use "affirmative action" to fill your slots. That was the 1st mistake. When Shanika comes in with her gold "grill", and DeWayne with his pants around his ass,and you HIRE them, what do you expect. I have seen this in every airport I go to. Hire people who dress well, who speak well, who's PAST EXPERIENCE shows they are professional,mature and motivated to perform their job, which is a vital national security position,when you really get down to it.

political correctness has again,and will continue to, put our country and Americans,you and me included,at risk, and it is due to the "affirmative Action" and needing a certain amount of this color,that color is over-represented ect. Bull is what it is.

Am I racist? No, I hate everyone equally. Non-Hackers and leeches are what they are,I just see alot more black disgraces in TSB than any other,be it white,latin,asian ect.

Our government "knows" it...
...they also "get it"

They refuse to acknowledge it. I am certain there are MANY reasons why they refuse that range from things as harmless as absolute social blindness to the refusal to admit a mistake, call abject naivete or even things more sinister...

...but they definitely "know it"

just my two cents

If Reagan could fire the Air Traffic Controllers, why can't TSA be fired and we us the USMC to guard Airports?. They do fairly well with the Embassy. No weapons, class B's, shinny shoes, clean haircuts. After Basic and AIT, 6 months on the Airport line, move to next assisgnment. I'd trust a green (young) Marine over the last TSA egg-head I had.

Damn good idea Wet Dog! I'm pretty sure they'd figure out a way to speed up the process while improving security too. Plus the ACLU would be happy since there's NO WAY they would profile passengers. Never. :D

Wet Dog- I believe you have hit upon something!

Hey,NG and RES soldiers were called up and performed airport security duty as well. BOTH (USMC and NG/RES) have pride in their appearance,which (more often than not) translates over into pride in their job,knowing they perform a vital front line,homeland security function.

IMO - the first line of defense is an aware and alert citizenry who are paying attention and willing to take action when necessary.

The TSA is the equivalent of placing PVT Smedlap on guard duty at the motor pool with a pickaxe handle and a set of simplified general orders - to keep honest people honest and make it appear as if something useful is being done...and - maybe - identify the occasional fool.

The 'real' security are the many layers of intelligence, military, and LEOs which - for the most part - have done a commendable job in preventing many such attempted happenings - apparently 14 so far this year according to NPR.

To that end, the situation with the latest 'profile template fitting' young, lonely, disaffected male who sought some sort of purpose in life and the hereafter concerns me.

Richard's $.02 :munchin

TSA
 

IMHO, There is an element of personal responsibility in war time -- and we are at war -- that even civilians hold. Right after 9/11, when we could fly again, the flights were pretty empty. Usually, there were only 2-3 people in first class those days on the East Coast, usually me and 2 older gentlemen. But we always agreed at take-off, no one unauthorized gets past us to the front of the aircraft, period. None of us assumed prior military service of the other or spoke of it, but probably all had served.

I've included the annual pay scale of TSA entry level jobs -- most of the people we encounter are at this A-B end of the scale -- we do not seek out professionals in this job. (A: $16,831-$24,608; B $19,281-$28,124)

We seek out people looking for low paying, repetitive jobs. I like the Marine idea much better. Good training for new troops before further AIT, deployment. Anyone remember the Pakistani guards we had at the Kasernen in Germany? How I wished for an American guard!

just my .02

Good point WD,it is scary that such a plan like that would/should wake up this country....... :rolleyes: Maybe!!!!! :confused:

Big Teddy :munchin

Oh about those high speed explosive detecting machines. The ones I have seen don't work half the time. They require constant maintenance. We had the Saber 2000. Same this TSA used. They sucked. We couldn't even get them to pick up a bag of TNT after they were only a year old.