Jeffrey Voight wrote
There are those that would tell you that the solution to terrorism isn't
to treat the symptoms (shoebombers and boxcutters) but to treat the
disease itself. Rather than harden the cabin and examine every bag,
they would tell you, we should change our foreign policy in order to
stop being such a target.

Which is exactly the goal of the terrorists, and only starts to sound
like a sensible idea once you buy into the whole 'war on terror'
nonsense.

What makes the whole concept of a warr on terror stupid is this -
terror is only another means to wage war, used by those who lack more
effective means. If these people had tanks and planes and missiles
and armies, they would be using those to attack. They don't, so they
do what they can. A war on terror is a war on war is like fighting
for peace - which is about as sensible as ****ing for virginity. We
do not fight for peace - we fight for freedom, and that includes the
freedom to choose our friends, our allies, and our enemies.

To the extent that we alter our foreign policy in a manner that favors
the terrorist organizations, we allow them to dictate our foreign
policy, and limit our freedom to choose our friends, our allies, and
our enemies. In other words, we show them that terror works as a
weapon. Is that REALLY the message you want to send?

It's important to put all this in perspective and remember that all
acts of terror put together in the last ten years have killed fewer
americans than highway crashes in the last month. In other words, in
an objective sense terror DOESN'T work as a weapon unless we allow it
to. Are you seriously suggesting that we should alter our own foreign
policy to prevent a few thousand deaths in a decade when we won't
change the speed limit from 65 to 35 to prevent as many deaths in a
month?

A far more reasonable response to the situation would be to do
something really, really nasty (from the point of view of the terror
organizations) every time they succeed in killing a few of us. For
example, rather than spending tons of money on the largely ineffective
war on terror, we could pledge a sum of money, for every american life
lost in a terrorist incident, to be given as additional military aid
to Israel. It's cheaper than what we're doing, and it will force the
terrorists to realize that any time they succeed in hurting us, they
strengthen their worst enemy.

We can be even nastier by stating that anything Israel chooses to do
in the region for, say, three months following a successful terrorist
attack against Americans, no matter how egregious or brutal, will not
be sanctioned by the US - and that the US will veto any UN sanctions
as well. Let every terrorist know that even if he gets a few of us,
it will only mean open season on his own people and a free had for his
worst enemies.

They would tell you that the solutions you have proposed cost the
airline industry (unless you're expecting the tax-payer to foot the
bill) and don't prevent foreign carriers from experiencing terrorism in
our airspace.

The airlines are operating dangerous machinery that can be and has
been used to kill thousands of people on the ground who never
consented to the risk. It is their responsibility to secure that
machinery from unauthorized persons, thus security is a normal cost of
doing business. If this makes them non-competitive on certain routes
with other forms of transportation such as cars, trains, or light
airplanes, that's just too bad. Maybe we really don't need airline
flights from Houston to Austin. If foreign carrirers won't implement
security procedures, we are under no obligation to permit them to
operate in our airspace.

Michael