Sécurité aérienne: Plus dhimmi que moi, tu meurs ! (Welcome to the brave new world of unmentionables!)

The United States and Israel share a great deal of, information and techniques on air security, and we both use the same equipment, including the full-body scanner. The difference is that in the U.S., the scanner is the default security check method, while in Israel it is an exceptional method. (…) Since they don’t do profiling, they have no way to determine who is a greater and lesser risk – so they have to treat everyone as a potential security risk. (…) In the U.S., they don’t even profile on the basis of flight destination anymore, but they realize the bad people are out there – so they have no choice but to treat everyone as potentially guilty unless proven innocent, and check them in the scanners. (…) There’s no question that the Transport Safety Administration has a much harder job than us, and many of the things done in Israel would be much harder to implement in the U.S., given the much higher volume of passengers.  (…) But it is precisely for that reason behavioral profiling would be so helpful – to eliminate the large majority of passengers that are safe, and to use limited resources more efficiently. Alon Wainer
Not all Muslims are terrorists, but most of today’s global terrorists are Muslims’ — given that terrorism of the age requires very few zealots. The miniscule percentage of .001% of the Muslim community as potential terrorists is quite a lot, given we never hear of the size of the pool from which we are postulating.
The fact is that in both theaters only military action can demoralize the terrorists and insurgents enough to back off to allow ongoing diplomacy and so-called nation building to proceed.
Iraq is fairly stable not just because of constitutional reform and Ryan Crocker’s inspired diplomacy or Gen. Petraeus’s brilliant efforts to assure civilians hope and safety, but also because the US military and the Sons of Iraq in the Anbar Awakening annihilated vast cadres of al Qaeda and radical Sunni terrorists. The history of war suggests gridlocked conflicts evolve to diplomatic solutions once one side fears losing or at least sees it cannot win.
The California papers are now heralding that the state’s schools have over a 50 majority of Hispanic students. But while that is good news to liberals who seem to see race as essential not incidental to larger society, it raises then some very uncomfortable corollaries for reporters — such as, is there any connection to why California’s once top-flight public schools had fallen to near dead last in test scores, given millions of non-English speakers? (…) Massive illegal immigration into the state — by millions over the last two decades from the interior of Mexico — has resulted in a sizable resident population with no English, no high school diplomas, and no legality. For most in these rubrics, an entry level, manual-labor job too often became a dead-end one at minimal wages — with all the ripples we’d expect into the second generation. (…) Those who voice the unmentionable will be branded as racists by those who are mostly a) terrified of living in a world like they see today in Mexico; and b) believe that they live in a neighborhood or earn an income or navigate in a world that insulates them from the concrete wages of their easy political correctness.
When George Bush gave his May 1, 2003 “Mission Accomplished” speech on the deck of the USS Lincoln, he infamously stated, “Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.” Bush wanted to convey the thought that we had won the war and so spoke as he did. He also wished to qualify what he said, just in case violence again broke out. So he added all sorts of ad-ons and qualifiers in the speech, starting with the word “major” (as in maybe less major combat has not ended.) There were others like this in the speech, “And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.” And this, “We have difficult work to do in Iraq.” And this, “The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. Then we will leave, and we will leave behind a free Iraq.” Victor Davis Hanson
Nowhere do more people meekly acquiesce to more useless inconvenience and needless indignity for less purpose. Charles Krauthammer
I always follows Asians in the security line. They pack light, travel efficiently, and they got a thing for slip-on shoes, God love ’em. (..) I’m like my mother. I stereotype. It’s faster. George Clooney character (in Up in the air)
Everyone knows that the entire apparatus of the security line is a national homage to political correctness. Nowhere do more people meekly acquiesce to more useless inconvenience and needless indignity for less purpose. Wizened seniors strain to untie their shoes; beltless salesmen struggle comically to hold up their pants; 3-year-olds scream while being searched insanely for explosives – when everyone, everyone, knows that none of these people is a threat to anyone. The ultimate idiocy is the full-body screening of the pilot. The pilot doesn’t need a bomb or box cutter to bring down a plane. All he has to do is drive it into the water, like the EgyptAir pilot who crashed his plane off Nantucket while intoning « I rely on God, » killing all on board. (…) The only reason we continue to do this is that people are too cowed to even question the absurd taboo against profiling – when the profile of the airline attacker is narrow, concrete, uniquely definable and universally known. Charles Krauthammer

Bienvenue au monde de ces choses qu’on ne mentionnera pas!

En ce lendemain de Thanksgiving où nombre des Américains qui n’ont pas encore jeté l’éponge devant la véritable course d’obstacles que sont devenus –  merci les Palestiniens et Ben Laden ! – les voyages aériens se préparent  à rentrer chez eux …

Après avoir tout récemment pu vérifier les ratés que pouvait entrainer le contre-profilage électoral …

Retour, avec l’éditorialiste du WP Charles Krauthammer et l’historien militaire Victor Davis Hanson, sur ce petit monument d’imbécilité bien-pensante auquel est en train d’aboutir le refus du simple profilage

A savoir le choix entre un visionnage de qualité X de son intimité et une palpation qui se rapproche de jour en jour de l’agression sexuelle …

Et ce, quand tout le monde sait qu’outre le blindage des cockpits et la vigilance plus grande des personnel et passagers, la mesure la plus efficace et retenue par les experts – israéliens – en la matière est très probablement le profilage approfondi …

Y compris pour l’équipage et les pilotes!

Don’t touch my junk

Charles Krauthammer

November 19, 2010

Ah, the airport, where modern folk heroes are made. The airport, where that inspired flight attendant did what everyone who’s ever been in the spam-in-a-can crush of a flying aluminum tube – where we collectively pretend that a clutch of peanuts is a meal and a seat cushion is a « flotation device » – has always dreamed of doing: pull the lever, blow the door, explode the chute, grab a beer, slide to the tarmac and walk through the gates to the sanity that lies beyond. Not since Rick and Louis disappeared into the Casablanca fog headed for the Free French garrison in Brazzaville has a stroll on the tarmac thrilled so many.

Who cares that the crazed steward got arrested, pleaded guilty to sundry charges, and probably was a rude, unpleasant SOB to begin with? Bonnie and Clyde were psychopaths, yet what child of the ’60s did not fall in love with Faye Dunaway and Warren Beatty?

And now three months later, the newest airport hero arrives. His genius was not innovation in getting out, but deconstructing the entire process of getting in. John Tyner, cleverly armed with an iPhone to give YouTube immortality to the encounter, took exception to the TSA guard about to give him the benefit of Homeland Security’s newest brainstorm – the upgraded, full-palm, up the groin, all-body pat-down. In a stroke, the young man ascended to myth, or at least the next edition of Bartlett’s, warning the agent not to « touch my junk. »

Not quite the 18th-century elegance of « Don’t Tread on Me, » but the age of Twitter has a different cadence from the age of the musket. What the modern battle cry lacks in archaic charm, it makes up for in full-body syllabic punch.

Don’t touch my junk is the anthem of the modern man, the Tea Party patriot, the late-life libertarian, the midterm election voter. Don’t touch my junk, Obamacare – get out of my doctor’s examining room, I’m wearing a paper-thin gown slit down the back. Don’t touch my junk, Google – Street View is cool, but get off my street. Don’t touch my junk, you airport security goon – my package belongs to no one but me, and do you really think I’m a Nigerian nut job preparing for my 72-virgin orgy by blowing my johnson to kingdom come?

In « Up in the Air, » that ironic take on the cramped freneticism of airport life, George Clooney explains why he always follows Asians in the security line:

« They pack light, travel efficiently, and they got a thing for slip-on shoes, God love ’em. »

« That’s racist! »

« I’m like my mother. I stereotype. It’s faster. »

That riff is a crowd-pleaser because everyone knows that the entire apparatus of the security line is a national homage to political correctness. Nowhere do more people meekly acquiesce to more useless inconvenience and needless indignity for less purpose. Wizened seniors strain to untie their shoes; beltless salesmen struggle comically to hold up their pants; 3-year-olds scream while being searched insanely for explosives – when everyone, everyone, knows that none of these people is a threat to anyone.

The ultimate idiocy is the full-body screening of the pilot. The pilot doesn’t need a bomb or box cutter to bring down a plane. All he has to do is drive it into the water, like the EgyptAir pilot who crashed his plane off Nantucket while intoning « I rely on God, » killing all on board.

But we must not bring that up. We pretend that we go through this nonsense as a small price paid to ensure the safety of air travel. Rubbish. This has nothing to do with safety – 95 percent of these inspections, searches, shoe removals and pat-downs are ridiculously unnecessary. The only reason we continue to do this is that people are too cowed to even question the absurd taboo against profiling – when the profile of the airline attacker is narrow, concrete, uniquely definable and universally known. So instead of seeking out terrorists, we seek out tubes of gel in stroller pouches.

The junk man’s revolt marks the point at which a docile public declares that it will tolerate only so much idiocy. Metal detector? Back-of-the-hand pat? Okay. We will swallow hard and pretend airline attackers are randomly distributed in the population.

But now you insist on a full-body scan, a fairly accurate representation of my naked image to be viewed by a total stranger? Or alternatively, the full-body pat-down, which, as the junk man correctly noted, would be sexual assault if performed by anyone else?

This time you have gone too far, Big Bro’. The sleeping giant awakes. Take my shoes, remove my belt, waste my time and try my patience. But don’t touch my junk.

Voir aussi:

Dead Souls

Victor Davis Hanson

Pajamas Media

November 14, 2010

Millions of us shuffle around, sighing that most of what we hear pounded into our brains is either banal or as untrue as it is dangerous to identify it as such. So we ignore it, we the dead souls who live in the world of unmentionable thoughts.

The World of Banality

Here is a daily inanity: “The great majority of Muslims are moderates,” and its ancillary “Only a tiny percentage of Muslims are terrorists.” Both are true, but they have value as admonishments only if there were a widespread Western effort to demonize Islam and persecute Muslims, or we knew that mass destruction required millions of conventional troops. But neither is true.

Last year anti-Semitic hate crimes far outnumbered attacks in America on Muslims.

Let us do some hypothetical math to suggest a small minority can be a very great worry. If the common referent of a 1 billion Muslims in the world is roughly accurate, and if there are only, say, 10% of the number who are rather radical in their beliefs (e.g., the tens of millions in places like Iran, Lebanon, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia), we may be talking only about 100 million Muslims who are indifferent to speaking out against terrorism (we saw that reflected in a number of polls after 9/11 tracking public opinion in the Middle East, in which only a quarter to a third of the respondents had a positive opinion of Bin Laden or the tactic of suicide bombing.)

And further if, of that 10%-100 million subset, only one in ten is actually sympathetic, or willing to offer aid, to terrorists, and if, among that population of about 10 million, another one in ten actually wishes to commit terrorist acts, then we would have 1 million Muslims worldwide to watch out for — or one in a thousand Muslims that might cause some worry.

In that context, I‘d prefer the other banality ‘not all Muslims are terrorists, but most of today’s global terrorists are Muslims’ — given that terrorism of the age requires very few zealots. The miniscule percentage of .001% of the Muslim community as potential terrorists is quite a lot, given we never hear of the size of the pool from which we are postulating.

No Military Solution!

I heard this banality four times this week on the air and at two lectures: “There is no military solution!”

Well, yeah, of course, you cannot bomb or blow up your way to democracy in Iraq or Afghanistan. But who ever embraced that straw man as the sole answer in our ongoing wars?

The fact is that in both theaters only military action can demoralize the terrorists and insurgents enough to back off to allow ongoing diplomacy and so-called nation building to proceed.

Iraq is fairly stable not just because of constitutional reform and Ryan Crocker’s inspired diplomacy or Gen. Petraeus’s brilliant efforts to assure civilians hope and safety, but also because the US military and the Sons of Iraq in the Anbar Awakening annihilated vast cadres of al Qaeda and radical Sunni terrorists.

The history of war suggests gridlocked conflicts evolve to diplomatic solutions once one side fears losing or at least sees it cannot win. The banality of “There is no military solution” among today’s elites has become synonymous with either “we are losing” or “we want out.”

The Unmentionables

Then there are the unmentionables that we dead souls carry around as well. All matters that even touch on race are good examples. The California papers are now heralding that the state’s schools have over a 50 majority of Hispanic students. But while that is good news to liberals who seem to see race as essential not incidental to larger society, it raises then some very uncomfortable corollaries for reporters — such as, is there any connection to why California’s once top-flight public schools had fallen to near dead last in test scores, given millions of non-English speakers?

Answers are offered in our major newspapers this week along the following lines. We are told in these articles that only 40% of Latino parents can vote (= if they could vote, would schools change for the better? And why did parents not take action to qualify to vote? And did not they already vote (with their feet) by the very fact they fled their homes to risk something entirely alien in the north?)

In order not to address those questions, an “expert” is introduced into the article to reference school board elections where noncitizens might vote (= if one does not follow the law, change it!). We are next reminded in these reports that few parents speak fluent English. Presto! another PhD is found to suggest that rather than illegal aliens learning English, California should learn Spanish (= If a century and a half of custom is bothersome, drop the custom).

We the dead souls read this and conclude just the opposite: Massive illegal immigration into the state — by millions over the last two decades from the interior of Mexico — has resulted in a sizable resident population with no English, no high school diplomas, and no legality. For most in these rubrics, an entry level, manual-labor job too often became a dead-end one at minimal wages — with all the ripples we’d expect into the second generation.

Therefore one should stop illegal immigration, restore respect for the law, push English emersion, and stress the traditional American melting pot of cultural assimilation — on the theory those who flee the nightmare of today’s Mexico, surely do not wish to recreate up here what they left down there, and instead are ready for a different social, economic, cultural, and political paradigm that explains why life changes radically from Tijuana to San Diego.

Then a nanno-second later, we the dead souls sigh that we know such a melting-pot paradigm would work, and yet will not be tired in this era of the ’salad bowl.’ Those who voice the unmentionable will be branded as racists by those who are mostly a) terrified of living in a world like they see today in Mexico; and b) believe that they live in a neighborhood or earn an income or navigate in a world that insulates them from the concrete wages of their easy political correctness.

Rhetorically Ignorant — or ‘He’s Back’

Andrew Sullivan is an iconic character of these depressing times — a sort of herky-jerky Paris Hilton of the blogosphere, in which brash amorality, such as accusing the Palins of faking pregnancies or smearing officials as “war criminals,” substitutes for any real thinking.

His latest attack last week offers another teachable moment. Sullivan claimed that I, and others, committed the “big lie” (note the characteristic Sullivan bombast [“liar,” “torturer,” “criminal” are favorite slurs]) by stating that Obama did not believe in American exceptionalism, based on president’s following remarks:

I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism. I’m enormously proud of my country and its role and history in the world. If you think about the site of this summit and what it means, I don’t think America should be embarrassed to see evidence of the sacrifices of our troops, the enormous amount of resources that were put into Europe postwar, and our leadership in crafting an Alliance that ultimately led to the unification of Europe. We should take great pride in that.

And if you think of our current situation, the United States remains the largest economy in the world. We have unmatched military capability. And I think that we have a core set of values that are enshrined in our Constitution, in our body of law, in our democratic practices, in our belief in free speech and equality, that, though imperfect, are exceptional.

Here Obama engaged in what in American parlance is sometimes known as prebuttal (see below) — the anticipation of criticism to come through preemptive qualification.

But Sullivan thinks that the “context” and qualifiers that Obama tacked on, praising the U.S., nullify the force of his more dramatic and sarcastic introductory statement, “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” Therefore those of us who quoted Obama to the effect that the president felt American exceptionalism was simply a variant of what all countries profess were peddlers of the “big lie.”

Of course, Obama really did make it clear that exceptionalism is just a notion that every state claims, America no differently than any others in its belief in its own singularity. But Sullivan leaps to the puerile conclusion that the Obama ad-ons, the prebuttal, nullify the force of the controversial statement.

Yet such subsidiary amplification — sometimes known to the Greeks as prolepsis and sometimes more technically with elements of procatelepsis, and perhaps antanagoge — serves two purposes: the controversial theme can be voiced for the record, and yet the speaker is protected from criticism by preemptive qualification. We know what Obama meant since he otherwise need not have said anything about exceptionalism; we also know that the naïve or disingenuous partisan like Sullivan would immediately point to the qualifiers.

Most politicians do this. When George Bush gave his May 1, 2003 “Mission Accomplished” speech on the deck of the USS Lincoln, he infamously stated, “Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.”

Bush wanted to convey the thought that we had won the war and so spoke as he did. He also wished to qualify what he said, just in case violence again broke out. So he added all sorts of ad-ons and qualifiers in the speech, starting with the word “major” (as in maybe less major combat has not ended.) There were others like this in the speech, “And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.” And this, “We have difficult work to do in Iraq.” And this, “The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. Then we will leave, and we will leave behind a free Iraq.”

One could argue that Bush’s “major combat operations…have ended” statement referenced only more “major” combat operations in the three-week war against Saddam’s conventional forces and government alone, and not insurgencies or terrorism or non-conventional fighting, but I won’t argue that. I think even Bush regretted that premature assessment, which often had the later effect to discourage noting progress from the surge, given the public’s remembrance of the prior false hope.

I think instead Bush wanted to assure the nation that most fighting of all sorts was largely over, and yet he was not entirely certain of that — thus the qualifications. He was logically faulted for that speech by the Left, especially by the likes of Andrew Sullivan who posted repeated attacks on the controversial “major combat operations in Iraq have ended,” but who on that occasion ignored the qualifiers that followed throughout the speech. Sullivan, however, is never consistent in his criticism because he suffers, inter alia, from the worst trait of a commentator — the constant desire to adjust his own opinions, often in blatantly hypocritical and contradictory style, to the assumed prevailing view.

Bombast and hyperbole do not denote passion of belief or sincerity.

Voir enfin:

Why They Don’t Need To ‘Touch Your Junk’ At Israeli Airports

Jeff Dunetz

Big government

2010

Fighting against terrorism, an evil which rejects all the basic moral and legal norms of civilized society, is inherently difficult for liberal democracies such as the United States. It forces us  to find the right balance between the protection of civil liberties on one hand and the prevention of violence on the other. It is clear that the latest TSA policy which gives passengers the Hobson’s choice of losing your dignity or staying home is not “balanced.”

Many of the issues in front of our policymakers have previously been faced by Israel, a country that has been under the threat of terrorist attack since its inception in 1948. We keep hearing why can’t we run our airport security the same way they do in Israel. Most people, however do not have a clear idea of what is that “Israeli way.”

The real difference between the Israeli and American approach is the target.  Israel tries to identify and stop the terrorist while the U.S. targets the bomb or other weapon. This approach does not change whether there is a left or right wing Prime Minister in power because the government realizes for Israel, the fight against terrorism is a fight for its very survival. Thus her government and citizenry have a view of preventing terrorism that is unencumbered by the political correctness which restrains efforts in the United States. [1]

The ISA (Israeli Security Agency) calls it  “human factor.” Some part of that human factor would cause Al Sharpton to show up to picket the Airport if it was practiced in the US. Ethnic profiling of passengers plays a central role in Israel’s multi-level  approach. Not just ethnicity is profile, race religion, general appearance and behavior are also part of the information used to profile.  And  wherever that profile is being made, no matter what country  it is being made in, it is an Israeli doing the profile.

All passengers [2] travelling to and from Israel are questioned by security staff. For Jewish Israelis, the process takes a couple of minutes at most, with passengers being asked whether they packed their luggage alone, and whether anyone had access to the luggage once it was packed. Jewish tourists also usually pass through security within a few minutes.

When my family entered the El Al terminal at Newark Airport, we were met by someone who asked  where we came from and where were going. When we got into the terminal and on the line to check in,  an El Al employee asked my 12 year old son (out of my ear’s range) why we were going to Israel. He asked if we were Jewish and when my son answered yes, so followed up by asking the name of our Synagogue and our Rabbi’s name. But while he was asking questions I could feel his eyes gauging my reaction to our kid’s interrogation. The “interrogation” took no longer than thirty seconds.  When he was done with my son, he came to me and asked the same questions (plus the typical who packed your luggage-type queries)  once again gauging my reaction very closely.

Like the Mossad, tank drivers, and air force pilots, Israeli airport security have that super hero, no-nonsense, get to the point directness and efficiency. “Who packed your bags?” “What was your bar mitzah portion?” “Why are you even here visiting?” This quick-fire interrogation was not bothersome but reassuring. We got the feeling that we were dealing with people who knew what they were doing.

Non-Jewish [2] tourists tend to be questioned a bit more thoroughly, and may be grilled over the purpose of their visit and about their accommodation…

… the procedure for Arabs and Muslims can often be lengthy and irritating, ending with a full body and baggage search. Visitors who have passport stamps from countries hostile to Israel are also questioned intensively in what can be a traumatic experience for the uninitiated.

….Anyone admitting to leaving their luggage at an airport or bus station left-luggage area before check-in will have their suitcases stripped, with each item individually checked and re-packed.

In 2008, Israel’s supreme court rejected a petition presented by a group of disgruntled Israeli Arab citizens, backed by the Association of Civil Rights in Israel, demanding an end to ethnic profiling as discriminatory and illegal.

If I had been more attentive when I was travelling to Israel,  I would have noticed that throughout the terminal there were “armed eyes” looking at my family as well as everyone else about to get on a plane. These observers were making the same behavioral profiles as the guy who questioned  people on line.

“It is mindboggling [3] for us Israelis to look at what happens in North America, because we went through this 50 years ago,” said Rafi Sela, the president of AR Challenges, a global transportation security consultancy.,.

Officers are looking for nervousness or other signs of “distress” — behavioral profiling. Sela rejects the argument that profiling is discriminatory.

“The word ‘profiling’ is a political invention by people who don’t want to do security,” he said. “To us, it doesn’t matter if he’s black, white, young or old. It’s just his behavior. So what kind of privacy am I really stepping on when I’m doing this?”

There are other differences, most importantly is that you don’t just come off the street and get a job  with the ISA (Israel Security Agency).  These security agents are all ex-military (as most of the country is) and they are selected based on their intelligence and their ability to behavior profile.

Shlomo Harnoy [2], vice president of the Sdema group, an Israeli security consultancy firm which specialises in aviation security, believes Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian who tried to blow up the Detroit-bound Northwest Airlines aircraft on Christmas Day, would have been detained “within seconds ” at Ben Gurion airport. According to Harnoy, a young Muslim traveling alone, on a one-way ticket, with no luggage, was an obvious suspect.

Harnoy, who once headed the Israel Security Agency’s aviation security department, believes investing millions in new technology is not the answer. “Whoever is concentrating on stopping old ladies bringing a bottle of mineral water on to the plane will not find the terrorist, or the bomb. The old lady is not a suicide bomber and the bottle of water is not a bomb component.”

Not only do most Israeli security selectors have degree-level education, they are trained to the highest standards. The most important element in the “human factor” is that the security guards understand the threat.

And of course, on every El Al flight there are armed air marshals. You won’t know who they are, but I do not recommended you making a fuss mid-air just to find out.

As for my families first brush with Israeli Airport Security, we arrived in Ben Gurion Airport twelve hours later, tired but not even realizing that we went through a more extensive security process than we ever had before. [4]

As the United States defends against the ever expanding threat of Muslim terror, right here on our home turf, success depends on throwing off the shackles of political correctness and adopting the methods of our ally Israel.

However the US is stuck in what seems to be an irreversible and deadly policy of treating everyone the same., even though we are all individuals and very different. The ultimate result is an airport security process that gives you a choice of being abused by a machine or the groping hands of an untrained TSA agent. The present TSA policies put passengers and the X-Ray appliances that reveal their bare bodies in the same category as they are both treated like machines.

During her 62 year fight against terror, Israel has achieved a balance between protection of civil liberties and the prevention of violence. Her decision was that the sanctity of saving human lives  and preserving personal dignity, outweighs the targeting and possible inconvenience of the extra questioning of a few.

Or in the words of that great philosopher from the band KISS, Gene Simmons [5] ;

I think we should be racially profiling anybody from the Middle East … and as an Israeli; I want you to look at me first. I want you to search my anal cavity and look at my tax records. I want you to look at me first, and then at every guy named Muhammad. [6]

Un commentaire pour Sécurité aérienne: Plus dhimmi que moi, tu meurs ! (Welcome to the brave new world of unmentionables!)

  1. […] du WP Charles Krauthammer et l’historien militaire Victor Davis Hanson, sur ce petit monument d’imbécilité bien-pensante auquel est en train d’aboutir le refus du simple profilage […]

    J'aime

Laisser un commentaire

Entrez vos coordonnées ci-dessous ou cliquez sur une icône pour vous connecter:

Logo WordPress.com

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte WordPress.com. Déconnexion / Changer )

Image Twitter

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Twitter. Déconnexion / Changer )

Photo Facebook

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Facebook. Déconnexion / Changer )

Photo Google+

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Google+. Déconnexion / Changer )

Connexion à %s

%d blogueurs aiment cette page :