Originally Posted by aspqrz
Consider this. Several years (i.e. less than five) ago a whine by one of our local far lefty idiot types about the fact that she and her Palestinian companion(s) took five-eight hours to get through security at Tel Aviv Airport when leaving the country was published in (IIRC) the Sydney Morning Herald (the Aussie equivalent of The Times or The New York Times) … she complained that it was racist and anti-muslim.
The SMH sought comment from an Israeli Security expert who made this point – 100% of terrorist attacks in Israel or directed at Israeli interests are carried out by Palestinians or Muslims (or a tiny cohort of crazy deluded westerners who are known to blindly support Palestinian terrorists). Stringent security measures aimed specifically at Palestinians and known pro-Palestinian activists is, therefore, a sensible precaution … and, as a result, there have been no terrorist attacks in Israeli airports since the measures were instituted.
'But, but, but!' the whiny idiot lefty complained, 'It's racial profiling!'
'Yes, but it's effective racial profiling' was the response.
Now, being of a generally left political perspective myself (socialist, not communist … something like Eurosocialist, but not the nonexistent Tranzi nonsense spouted by some people), but also being a long time supporter of Israel and of common sense, I could only shake my head at the outright lunacy of said lefty whiner.
So, consider this – close to 100% of recent terrorist attacks have been carried out by Muslims, often of Arab or other Middle Eastern or North African origin. While one can reasonably assume, based on the evidence, that they do not have widespread active support amongst the Muslim community, though they may have somewhat wider sympathy from same (way less than 1%, I'd guess, for the former, at least in the Western muslim diaspora) – but the fact remains that close to 100% of recent terrorists were muslims.
So, is it racism or racial profiling to direct the vast, overwhelming, majority of your security resources at muslims in general, and at muslim sympathisers amongst the more idiotic non-muslim elements of your society? Or is it common sense?
Likewise, is it racist to exclude muslims fleeing from undoubtedly repressive and violent regimes in the Middle East from non-muslim countries in the west that are many hundred, or even thousands, of klicks from their homelands, after having passed through (or bypassed) safe muslim countries on the basis that muslims are the source of close to 100% of recent terrorists?
Yes, racists will use this as an excuse to demonise many innocent muslims.
That, however, doesn't change the reality that it makes sense to target the root source of the problem – and, since it is seemingly impossible (and certainly is impossible with finite resources) to determine whether a muslim refugee is an actual terrorist plant or will, at some future time, become radicalised and commit terrorist acts, then doesn't it make sense to exclude all muslim would be refugees from non-muslim majority countries?
Isn't that common sense? Unpalatable, indeed, but common sense nonetheless.
Phil McGregor
|