Mostly Bollogs, I'm afraid

But occasionally, a glimmer of truth.
If you find one, please let me know.

Wednesday, 27 January 2010

Who is the baddie here?

There's a lot of kerfuffle surrounding the full body scan security at airports.

Rights, and all that.

I'd rather keep both right and left. I have no desire to finish my life prematurely in two different places at once.

I might have done a few more things than a few other people, which might or might not qualify me to say something about airport security.

For instance, I've seen a terrorist bomb go off. It's not pleasant. It was in the 70's and, compared to today's bomb technology, it was rubbish. Still caused a lot of carnage, though. Seeing a lady's shoe with a foot still in it is something which still haunts me.

For another instance, I've been in a plane when it's depressurised. Not funny either. Scary, in fact. I've also been in a plane when its single engine failed. Exciting, but not at all funny.

I've taken my kids to an airport and dropped them off to go on holiday with their mum. They were smaller at the time, and it was on one of the days when the queue just for the airport car park was a mile long, the day they announced the "no liquids" rule. Mayhem. I seriously thought about cancelling the holiday and taking them to the zoo instead. And I sat glued to the airport news channel until their flight landed.

Terrorists seem to have no limits when it comes to their imagination in finding ways to get round yesterday's security arrangements. When you make it hard for them to take in a fat bomb in a suitcase, you make them think harder. They then start to make bomb parts for mixing on the plane. When you stop them doing that, they make bombs for pants. The logical conclusion is that they will then invent a bomb which they implant up their rectum - it doesn't seem to bother them how they take leave of their mortal coil as long as they still get the virgins.

So what is the problem with letting these security people get on with their jobs, and allowing them to use available technology to lower your chances of being a fellow-passenger with some nutjob with half a pound of Semtex stuffed up his bottom?

Terrorists have no qualms about killing all sorts of innocent people, women and children included, as long as the virgins get delivered. That makes them lower than any other form of human life, in my book (and that of anyone I ever wish to meet). Because we are now caring, touchy-feely-group-huggy, mustn't offend anyone, dear oh dear, profiling, no sir, we are unable to address the likely perpetrators of these atrocities. And we mustn't punish them, not really, just lock them up with three square meals a day and free telly and perhaps learn a new skill, such as mailbag-sewing, or chemistry, or something. Same penalty as someone who refuses to pay their tax to fund an illegal war, for instance. Or someone who buggers a small defenceless child, or someone who calls a judge something he doesn't like, in court.

Change this. Let the security people do what they've been trained to do.

Just my opinion, but it seems that some are targeting the wrong villains here. Please disagree.


Anonymous said...

I cannot. You are spot on.

Sir Henry Morgan said...

Oh - and they've already done the rectum-bomb bit. Tried it on one of the leaders of Saudi Arabia - mobile phone bomb up the bumolee.

Well the suicide bit worked, anyway. All the targetted Saudi got was a bad smell sensation. Wonder if the bomber got his virgins?

Uncle Marvo said...


Bloody near killed him.

I'll try to think of a better example.