It will finally be said, at some point, that the authorities way
overdid this, placing maybe a quarter of the population of New England under
lock-down while some thirteen thousand cops - a number cited by CNN, so who knows? - conducted a house-to-house search over the whole of Watertown, at least.
And all of that was done, apparently, with not a shred of worry about such constitutional niceties as warrants.
And all of that was done, apparently, with not a shred of worry about such constitutional niceties as warrants.
The entire, rather astonishing affair was quite unprecedented.
And it will not be easy in days to come to make the proposition seem reasonable that a fleeing, wounded kid was so vastly more dangerous than the general run of Boston hoodlums that all of this was really called for.
One stupid-looking adolescent in a white baseball cap, worn backwards on his head, was that much more of a threat than the serial rapists, loony murderers, and professional criminals on the lose in Boston, all day all the time, every day of the year?
Yes, the professional left will turn up the volume of their angry, half insincere, half merely demented, and entirely irrelevant and unhelpful accusations of racism, though the Boston Bombers were quite visibly as white as any Grand Imperial Wizard has ever been.
And their efforts to smear their own invention, so-called "Islamophobia," as racism through endless hand-wringing about descriptions of terrorists as "swarthy," "Middle-Eastern looking," or even "Muslim looking," will be even sillier as we are shown again and again photos of terrorists from the Caucasus region of Russia.
"Caucasus"?
Whyever does that word seem so familiar?
And it will not be easy in days to come to make the proposition seem reasonable that a fleeing, wounded kid was so vastly more dangerous than the general run of Boston hoodlums that all of this was really called for.
One stupid-looking adolescent in a white baseball cap, worn backwards on his head, was that much more of a threat than the serial rapists, loony murderers, and professional criminals on the lose in Boston, all day all the time, every day of the year?
Wait for talk of weapons of mass destruction and the history of exceptional violence
of Muslim terrorism to come up in justification.
And the specific history of Muslim terrorism in Russia will
help to sustain that defense of such extraordinary measures.
Beslan. The opera house. And so on.
Yes, the professional left will turn up the volume of their angry, half insincere, half merely demented, and entirely irrelevant and unhelpful accusations of racism, though the Boston Bombers were quite visibly as white as any Grand Imperial Wizard has ever been.
And their efforts to smear their own invention, so-called "Islamophobia," as racism through endless hand-wringing about descriptions of terrorists as "swarthy," "Middle-Eastern looking," or even "Muslim looking," will be even sillier as we are shown again and again photos of terrorists from the Caucasus region of Russia.
"Caucasus"?
Whyever does that word seem so familiar?
Anyway, experts and authorities will be talking about that very special history of Muslim terrorism, and perhaps especially of Russian Muslim terrorism, for days and even weeks to come.
The only flaw in the argument will be evident and well-known counterexamples to the claim Muslim terrorism is unique in its violence, like that other white-as-snow mass slaughterer up in Norway, the frankly Christian and proudly anti-Muslim terrorist, Anders Breivik.
But are such cases really a flaw in the argument that modern terrorism, in general, calls for such historically exceptional and legally questionable counter-measures?
Won't that reference to the mad Norwegian quickly be taken to mean these draconian methods are also called for to cope with the escalated threat of non-Muslim terrorism?
Of anybody's terrorism, in our unfortunate age of very, very effective and easily obtained means of slaughter on a huge scale?
Remember as well the Tokyo subway gas attacks in 1995 by the bizarre Japanese Christian sect - or post-Christian cult, if you prefer - Aum Shinrikyo.
And to get a clearer idea of the scale of the threat, if one is needed, recall that interview, a few years back, of an al-Qaeda official in Pakistan.
A guest of the local Taliban, he blandly assured a visiting journo that yes, indeed, if only they could lay hands on one, al-Qaeda would certainly use a nuclear weapon against the US homeland.
Absolutely.
Oh, about those invasions.
As I have written in the past, I think and have thought all along they were both fool's errands and horrific, not to say likely counter-productive, wastes of resources in a hopeless effort to turn backwards, benighted, and barbarous Muslims into Bos-Wash suburbanites devoted to both the US and Israel.
But apart form the liberal stupidity of refusing profiling for airport security measures, I have thought the considerable ramping up of US anti-terrorism measures, both defense and offensive, domestic and foreign, entirely appropriate and sensible.
So, on the whole and all things considered, while the manhunt in Boston might well have been a bit overdone, going beyond and even well beyond ordinary law-enforcement, anti-crime methods was the right thing to do.
And it will seem all the more so to all the more people if further investigation of the Bomber Brothers turns up some really scary stuff, as time goes on.
By the way, Aum Shinrikyo is listed as a terrorist organization by numerous authorities and the Japanese evidently refer to it as a "dangerous religion."
Surely the very idea of such a thing is unacceptable and profoundly politically incorrect?
Tsk, tsk.
I wonder what other religions are on their list.
Oh, wait.
Doesn't this all mean profiling of terrorists at airports is racist, foolish, and evil?
Well, no.
Mostly, the really dangerous-in-a-big-way terrorists out to attack the US at this time are, in fact, Muslims.
When Aum Shinrikyo cultists join in we can add their profile to the airport security list.
And then liberals will yell some more about racism because the cultists are mostly, I think, Japanese, to this day.
The only flaw in the argument will be evident and well-known counterexamples to the claim Muslim terrorism is unique in its violence, like that other white-as-snow mass slaughterer up in Norway, the frankly Christian and proudly anti-Muslim terrorist, Anders Breivik.
But are such cases really a flaw in the argument that modern terrorism, in general, calls for such historically exceptional and legally questionable counter-measures?
Won't that reference to the mad Norwegian quickly be taken to mean these draconian methods are also called for to cope with the escalated threat of non-Muslim terrorism?
Of anybody's terrorism, in our unfortunate age of very, very effective and easily obtained means of slaughter on a huge scale?
Remember as well the Tokyo subway gas attacks in 1995 by the bizarre Japanese Christian sect - or post-Christian cult, if you prefer - Aum Shinrikyo.
And to get a clearer idea of the scale of the threat, if one is needed, recall that interview, a few years back, of an al-Qaeda official in Pakistan.
A guest of the local Taliban, he blandly assured a visiting journo that yes, indeed, if only they could lay hands on one, al-Qaeda would certainly use a nuclear weapon against the US homeland.
Absolutely.
Oh, about those invasions.
As I have written in the past, I think and have thought all along they were both fool's errands and horrific, not to say likely counter-productive, wastes of resources in a hopeless effort to turn backwards, benighted, and barbarous Muslims into Bos-Wash suburbanites devoted to both the US and Israel.
But apart form the liberal stupidity of refusing profiling for airport security measures, I have thought the considerable ramping up of US anti-terrorism measures, both defense and offensive, domestic and foreign, entirely appropriate and sensible.
So, on the whole and all things considered, while the manhunt in Boston might well have been a bit overdone, going beyond and even well beyond ordinary law-enforcement, anti-crime methods was the right thing to do.
And it will seem all the more so to all the more people if further investigation of the Bomber Brothers turns up some really scary stuff, as time goes on.
By the way, Aum Shinrikyo is listed as a terrorist organization by numerous authorities and the Japanese evidently refer to it as a "dangerous religion."
Surely the very idea of such a thing is unacceptable and profoundly politically incorrect?
Tsk, tsk.
I wonder what other religions are on their list.
Oh, wait.
Doesn't this all mean profiling of terrorists at airports is racist, foolish, and evil?
Well, no.
Mostly, the really dangerous-in-a-big-way terrorists out to attack the US at this time are, in fact, Muslims.
When Aum Shinrikyo cultists join in we can add their profile to the airport security list.
And then liberals will yell some more about racism because the cultists are mostly, I think, Japanese, to this day.
No comments:
Post a Comment