"Nothing we are doing now will make a recurrence of the Flight 253 incident any less likely"

The answer? In two words: EL AL!

Smart profiling.

One tiny glimmer of hope: anything that puts the burden, or shares a part of the enormous burden, of security with Muslim states and peoples, is a good thing. Right now more than a dozen Muslim countries (and Cuba, for comical camouflage) will now "suffer the indignity etc." of having their passengers subjected to much more intensive -- so we are told -- searches. This, they and we and the whole world knows, has to do with one thing and one thing only: their countries are Muslim, and the same scrutiny that will make life more unpleassant for their Muslim passengers should be, and may be, extended in the future.

Extended how?

Extended first to all Muslim nations.

Extended second to all Muslims who can be identified, or suspected of being Muslims, from non-Muslim countries, such as France and Great Britain.

Extended third to cover domestic flights, for there is no real reason to make any distinction between the greater threat of Muslim terrorism from Muslims flying within a country, whatever their own country of origin, and flying trans-nationally.

The lesson, the warning, is there: we are going to do what we must, or think we must.

Such screening relies mainly, however, on machines and not men. And it is men, not machines, men (and, bien entendu, women), if they are well-trained, if they are at the level of those who perform security for El Al, if they are thoroughly steeped in all the means of deceptiion, and are, unlike so many in authority who are supposed to be in the business of protecting us and themselves (the U.S. Army at Fort Hood, the C.I.A. the other day in Afghanistan, the security services in the airports of Portland, Boston, etc. on 9/11/2001), deeply, permanently, implacably suspicous of Muslims and not ever to be likely to confuse a plausible smile, or protestations of loyalty, or anything else, with the real thing, given that anyone today who now continues to call himself a Muslim may be held to believe that the Qur'an in uncreated and immutable, the Word of God, and thus held to believe and hold fast to all of its Jihad verses, beginning but hardly ending with 9.29 and 9.5, and a hundred others, and to the Hadith that are most dangerous to Infidels, and to the Sira. "I didn't know about it" may have passed muster as an excuse a decade ago, but it won't do know. And "I am not an extremist" or, still worse, the attempt to deny the contents of Qur'an -- "the Qur'an doesn't say that" -- or Hadith, or the attempt to deny all the things that Muhammad did (Banu Qurayza, Asma bint Marwan, Abu Afak, Khaybar Oasis, little Aisha) or to somehow explain them away as being "taken out of context" -- every Musllm who continues to attempt, in any way, to deceive Infidels about such matters is to be regarded with the greatest suspicion, and permanently. There is no other way to deal intelligently with the threat from within and without.

So smile all you want, pretend all you want, to regard Muslims as "moderates" - including those whom you may employ, at some level, to gather intelligence or help out, but never rely on Muslims beyond a certain level, unless of course they are true apostates, whether declared or not, who have a sense that Islam itself is responsible for all the failures and wretchedness and misery of Muslim states and societies, and they are not about, any longer, to continue out of fear of filial piety, to pretend otherwise, or do a thing to help the Camp of Islam, or any part of it.

Meanwhile, the American and other governments have to figure out how to really make the Muslim states pay for Muslim terrorism, pay so high a price that they will truly make efforts to stop it. When the Saudis stop worry9ing only about the safety of the Al-Saud, when they fire evey last hate-preaaching imam, when they show us what is in their textbooks and then publicly destroy those textbooks, when they stop funding the Jihad by the building of mosques and madrasas all over the West, stop funding campaigns to spread Islam among the psychically and economically marginal, stop spending money to transform the easygoing syncretism in parts of sub-Saharan Afrcia (just look at what Saudi money has done to the mosques and Muslims in Niger, for example), when they stop spreading money to "radicalize" groups of Muslims throughout the Western world, such as the Pomaks of Greece and Bulgaria (is anyone in the C.I.A. monitoring what money is arriving in Togo? In Niger? Among those Pomaks? No? Why not? I've managed to learn things, from the comfort of my living room, without getting out of my chair, through various informants -- so why can't the goddam C.I.A.?).

Read Saudi Arabia the riot act. They have to stop sending money to build mosques and madrasas. Saudi Arabia has assets in this and other Western countries. We have seized the assets of enemy aliens before -- we did it in World War II. We should let the Saudis know that in the war of self-defense against the Jihad that we are now conducting, conducting a tous azimuths, they are regarded as the enemy, and the money they spend in the West regarded as a Money Weapon that harms us, and we have ways to get back at them, and to make them pay for the tens of billions, or rather hundreds of billions, of dollars that the Western world is now forced to spend on security, of all kinds, at airpots, and on planes, and at train stations, bus stations, sports stadiums, government buildings, government monuments, Christian and Jewish schools, on individuals such as Kurt Westergaard in Denmark and Mr. Vilks in Sweden and Geert Wilders in the Netherlands and on Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and on many others, whose names need not be given here. Think only of the cost, in billions ofr man-hours, because now we must arrive at airports not one hour ahead of time, as once we did, or even with less of a wait, and not two hours for international flights, as we were required to do so after the 9/11/2001 attacks, but now, it appears, a full three hours. Add that all up.

Make the Muslims pay. Figure out ways to discomfit them, and above all, let the money come from them.

And make clear, by an example, what can be done. If the American government, and all Western governments, were now to cut off all commercial flights to and from Yemen, that would be an excellent thing. It would make Yemen, its government and people, surrounded by sea and then by a hostile and suspicious Saudi Arabia, aware of how dependent they are on the West. It would be a lesson for all the Arab and Muslim states. We mean business. We are fed up. The pain will be felt not only by us, by our air travellers, by our long-suffering taxpayers who must now pay for all the security all over our countries, where we are forced to monitor Muslims, foreign and domestic. No, the pain will be felt by you, for you are hopelessly dependent on the West for medical care, education, technnology, everything, and because you are Muslim states held back by the very thing that you hold most dear, because it in turn holds you in thrall, you will never ever catch up, though you think that you will, through your oil and gas revenues -- the only kind of revenues that come through no effort, no entrepreneurial flair, no hard work, no nothing -- be able to buy whatever you want.

No. No. No.

What good is any of it if muslims are working as screeners and are in other positions of responsibility? What good is any of it if we allow them to continue immigrating to our lands - all the while knowing they have our demise as their aim?

Everyone who helped to make us dependent upon ME oil is complicit in this situation if only through wishful thinking and willful blindness. They also need to be told that we can't afford to indulge their "environmental" daydreaming and AGW mythmaking any longer because they have left us chained to the monsters who are out to destroy us.

I agree with Cornelius; El Al has by far the best procedures regarding terror screening, and are not afraid to "profile", in as many ways as are useful.

I also agree with Hugh—the list of nations, all Muslim with the odd exception of Cuba (perhaps they should have thrown in North Korea, for good measure), represents a first step of sanity, They will hardly stop all would-be Jihad terrorists, though, who are now—insanely—as likely to originate in places such as Britain or the Netherlands as Afghanistan and Somalia.

But along with such nascent signs of sanity come idiotic TSA rules such as the ban on laptops and blankets and *even the use of restrooms* during the final hour of flight, which do nothing to address anything except the exact timing strategy of Abdulmutallab—something even the most dim-witted bomber would vary at this point.

Speaking of the TSA, President Obama didn't even put forth a nominee to head that vital agency until *September*—and then, that nominee is more interested in unionizing TSA workers than in any sort of security. Madness.

Muslims have been screwing with the Airlines for as long as I can remember. I think it is because it is the epitome of what Islam could never, and never would, be able to create.

Yea, what Hugh said.

And of course CAIR is stepping in with Nihad Awah complaining about profiling of Muslims. This of course was to be expected; never mind that 100Pct. of all terrorist attacks attempted or that succeeded where committed by Young male Muslims who hoped to get hooked up with those 72 virgins.

These so-called virgins we are finding out lately are really 72 old hags who where tired of being searched at airports, so when they passed on they went complained to Allah about this, and Allah said: "when those wanna be martyrs come up here we will give them some surprises."

It is good to hear that women like the little old lady from Pasadena will get some revenge on these terrorists after all.

The situation regarding Islam reminds me of "The Germans" episode of the great British comedy TV show Fawlty Towers, where Basil Fawlty urges the staff at his hotel "don't mention the War" when Germans come to visit. Well these days you can't "mention the Islam" which inspires the vast majority of terrorism today. CAIR and their usefull idiots on the left will make sure of that. And our "President" is the biggest useful idiot of them all, though in all fairness I should point out GW Bush did share the same reluctance to point out the Islamic source of the problem. Sigh.

"But instead, we just keep reapplying the same old failed policies. And they will continue to fail, because of a continuing failure to evaluate realistically the situation we're in."

Then we're stupid. And we'll die.

Homeland Security's budget is 50 billion annually and employs over 200,000 employees, that's about nearly $475.00 a year for every working American. For me that means that just a handful of neighbors on my block put up about $13,000 a year for HSC and not one of them has flown anywhere this past year because of the tough economy. I think we have the rights as Americans to demand what works more effectively in bringing security to Americans. To ignore the tool of profiling the mostl obvious, that of young Muslim men in fact is fool hardy at best. CAIR does not work for the American people but HSC does and they better start profiling those who fit the daily terrorist category or they are failing to do the job they are being paid for.

We Don't need to hear foolish dhimmi statements like this in response to CAIR"S Nihad Awah complaints:

A TSA spokesperson, Kristin Lee, responded that "TSA does not profile."

"As is always the case, TSA security measures are based on threat, not ethnic or religious background," Lee said.

Wrong again Kristin Lee! It is a absolute bold face fact fact that these Muslims are driven by religious teachings defined as Jihadist doctrine in the Quran. And there are at least 164 jihadists versus in the Quran let alone the Muslim Hadiths.

And of course, all failed terrorists should be immediately tried by a MILITARY TRIBUNAL, and upon conviction of attempted terroristic activity, EXECUTED. Not housed, fed, koranned, and mini-rugged for years and years either.

As far as profiling Muslims goes, you would have to search AlL of them, because next they'll mix it up by sending a be-burqad woman on board with the boom-boom stuff ... if not on her, then on her baby.

When I was a young lad, the Federal Government did everything stupid and made me laugh. (Military excluded.) The Fed was small then. They are as worthless today but they are big now. The problem today with our worthless Muslim enemies is that our government is making their ancient methods look good by virtue of our governments incompetance, and they are NOT making me laugh. They make me worried about the very future for us all.

The first thing we need to do is amend our anti-discrimination laws so that a person's devotion to Islam is no longer an unlawful basis for discrimination.

The second thing we need to do is to amend our civil rights laws to allow law enforcement personnel, including TSA and border agents, to do their jobs totally free of any restraints based on anti-discrimination laws whatsoever.

Third, we need to hire good U.S. citizens in national security positions, and let them do their jobs, unshackled by political correctness.

The American people are for the most part a fair people, and I do not think that the evils inherent in limiting the reach of our civil rights laws will outweigh the evils of failing to make changes necessary for our self-preservation as a nation. If expanded authority to discriminate is abused by an administration, voters will provide a check at the next election. I say we are relatively fair, because a brief look at history shows that although our country once recognized slavery, we ended it. We had segregation, and we ended it. Minorities have done well in this nation, and will continue to do so because the American people are a fair people, not because of anti-discrimination laws. If we were not a fair people, we never would have enacted those laws in the first place. Minorities will continue to experience more liberties here than in sharia-operated countries even if the security blanket provided by our 35-year-old anti-discrimination laws is modified or removed in areas central to national security concerns.

Americans attempting to provide security to our citizens are hamstrung in ways we never were before is because, in an effort to bring social progress and end social evils such as discrimination based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, etc. we have adopted laws prohibiting such discrimination and imposing penalties and providing legal remedies to persons who complain of such discrimination. These laws were well-intentioned, and were addressed to real evils in society, but are being used against us now by those Muslims who take the instructions of their warrior prophet and his booty-plundering, jizya-collecting religion seriously, and feel no qualms about using our legal system against us as they try to overthrow our country and its legal system and replace it with sharia law.

Until we amend our civil rights laws to enable us to effectively protect ourselves against the current threats, we are going to continue to muster inadequate and blindly stupid responses to the threats posed by the jihadists.

I am an old guy who remembers traveling with my parents to a border town in Mexico back before an atmosphere of political correctness took hold and seeped all the way into law enforcement functions. We were able to walk across the border and spend several hours in a Mexican border city and then come back through a U.S. border checkpoint at which the border patrol officers had to deal with a huge volume of people. No passports were required, and U.S border agents did not even bother looking at papers of most returning American tourists. They basically processed most of these people by looking at them, and asking a few short questions. They might ask a couple questions like, "What is your name" and "Where were you born?" and make a correct call in determining who was an American citizen in seconds. These were highly trained and experienced officers who no doubt were looking at a number of factors, including not only body language and tone of voice, but also factors considered politically correct today, such as racial or ethnic characteristics, the presence of an accent, dress, etc. If they wanted to give someone a bit extra scrutiny, they might ask "What are the first 3 numbers of your social security number?" or "What was your mother's maiden name?" If they still were uncertain about someone, they pulled them over for a long interview inside a building.

I asked one of them how they managed to screen so many people so quickly without looking at paperwork, and he simply shrugged his shoulders and said, "We can tell." And I am certain he could. Their effectiveness was no doubt based on a number of factors: their gut feelings, their willingness and unrestricted freedom to "scratch where it itches" their common sense, their experience, and their unswerving patriotic loyalty to the U.S.A.

The Y2K terrorist that got caught with explosives in his car trying to come into the US from western Canada to bomb the L.A. airport about 10 years ago was caught by such a border agent, based on his instincts and experience.

So, we need to hire good people to national security positions and then let them do their jobs as they see fit, without restraint. Who we hire for security and how those people do their jobs should not be dictated by Saudi-funded or Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated civil rights lawyers suing us for discriminating against Muslims, for example. We should be allowed to hire exclusively non-Muslim personnel to determine who receives visas, who is screened out at borders and airports, and they should be allowed to do their job as they see fit, seeking only to enhance the liberty and security of American citizens. Political correctness be damned. And in order for that to happen, we first need to change our laws. It should be possible to hire law enforcement persons for such positions without needing to worry about laws about discrimination, and for those persons to then enforce those laws without such worries.

I am not saying that the TSA or border patrol or anyone else should be instructed or required to profile based on race or ethnicity or national origin. I am not saying that they should ignore everyone else. I recognize that not every terrorist has an accent, or Middle Eastern racial features or an unpronouncible name, and that a screening process based on blind prejudice is also counterproductive.

What I am saying is that certain law enforcement officers should be allowed to use their own judgment in determining who gets screened, and if someone (CAIR for example) challenges them and asks how they screen for the bad guys, our people should be allowed to shrug their shoulders and simply say, "We can tell." Such personnel should be allowed to work without fear that they will be sued or investigated by Congress for violating someone's rights, or will be required to show the bad guys and their lawyers their playbook in order to prove that it is politically correct. And if the resulting screening process means that a disproportionate number of persons who are Muslim, Arab, Pakistani, Nigerian or Somali are given special attention at an airport or are denied student visas to flight schools or are denied employment in sensitive positions, nobody should need to worry about lawsuits.

Discrimination based on the religion of Islam should especially be allowed, since it out of Islam and its mosques and its teaching that the jihadists are coming to attack us, and since subscribing to Islam is a matter of individual choice (a choice to strive to overthrow our constitutional system and replace it with sharia law).

We need to spread a broad net in order to prevent terrorism, and this will no doubt result in some innocent people being inconvenienced. However, it makes no sense to inconvenience everyone equally, when the threat is coming from Islam. The community from which the threat comes should bear the brunt of the inconvenience. Let's face it. Even full-body scanning of every passenger is not likely to pick up an ounce of PETN sewn into someone's underwear, or contained in a suppository in a body orifice, and if 10 such terrorists plan simultaneous attacks, 9 or 10 will probably get through even a full-body scan, which will only provide a false sense of security and will keep TSA employees busy with people they know are not a threat. A screening process looking at criminal history would not have screened out most of the 9/11 terrorists, because there are plenty of young jihadis with no criminal record. A screening process based on whether someone pays cash for a one-way ticket is going to be figured out in a hurry by Al Quaeda, and avoided.

But a screening process which would seek to identify every Muslim and subject them to intensive screening and body searches is the only method I can think of which would actually have prevented 9/11 and would have a good chance of heading off the next Bojinka-like plot while still allowing 99% of Americans to move about with relative freedom. Can you imagine what would happen if a TSA official asked a would-be passenger a question such as, do you think Mohammed was justified in ordering attacks on Meccan camel caravans, or executing the Jews of Medina? It is not a pretty thought what the MSM or Congress would do with that, but it might be a good way to sort the Muslims in name only from the Muslim jihadists.

And let us not forget other types of threats. The ways in which jihadists can attack us is limited only by their imagination, which is unfortunately usually more creative than the imaginations of too many officials charged with the direction of our national security. Those threats will continue to grow as long as Muslim immigration is encouraged. I looked at an encyclopedia published 35 years ago and it said there were only 15,000 Muslims in the U.S.A. Now how many are there? Is that one reason we did not have these problems back then? Have we as a nation received a net benefit from this immigration?

Too many officials (and voters) do not want to discern a threat which will require the erection of a politically incorrect safeguard. They would prefer to rely, unrealistically, on an expectation that after-the-fact law enforcement prosecutions will somehow deter most terrorists (even though they are suicidal) and that our FBI and CIA will somehow (without waterboarding or eavesdropping) gain specific intelligence prior to any planned attack (even though it is nearly impossible to infiltrate Al Quaeda and small jihadists cells.)

Political correctness is now more important to people than life itself. Yet it is not a philosophy with a founder we can name. Nobody has written a book specifically extolling its virtues. (Please correct me if I am wrong.) Many people mock the very idea even as they follow its rules. Can we get people to admit that they would rather they and their families were horribly slaughtered than agree to relax strictures of "non-discrimination"? If they could admit it, and be encouraged to think that admitting they have been wrong is actually rather liberating - that freedom is worth fighting for, after all - could we begin to break the back of PC, which is the root of the problem...?

Muslim Ideological Profiling (MIP) Now!

No MIP, no security for the people of the U.S. in their own homeland. It's as simple as that.

http://go.to/islamhistory