In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, “propaganda of the deed” — individual acts of violence intended to inspire revolution — became the signature anarchist activity. Among the prominent casualties were French president Sadi Carnot, American president William McKinley and Italian King Umberto I.
Although propaganda of the deed has faded into history as an actuality, it tends to pop up frequently in anti-anarchist demagoguery, and I can’t help but think it’s set to do so once again. Early state and media spin on the killing of Gerardo Hernandez, the first US Transportation Security Administration employee to die “in the line of duty,” already attributes “anti-government views” to his alleged killer, Paul Ciancia.
As an anarchist, I’m not a fan of propaganda by the deed for three reasons:
First, it’s strategically useless. No single act is likely to produce anarchist revolution in an environment not yet primed for such revolution.
Secondly, it’s tactically counter-productive. Anyone with the intelligence and energy to plan such an act could do so much more for the cause in other ways than getting himself killed or imprisoned in this kind of one-off project.
Finally, all such activities carry a heavy risk of “collateral damage” and we anarchists, unlike state actors, actually shoulder true responsibility for our actions instead of seeking excuses for them.
All that said, if Ciancia did what he’s accused of doing, in the manner he’s accused of doing it, whether he intended it as “progaganda of the deed” or not, he deserves the thanks and support of a grateful populace.
Former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, a senior adviser to US president Barack Obama, justified the Obama regime’s cold-blooded murder of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki — a 16-year-old American accused of no crime whatsoever — with the claim that if he didn’t want to be murdered, he should have “had a more responsible father” (his father, Anwar al-Awlaki, was in fact accused of crimes, although the evidence seemed pretty weak).
To riff on Gibbs: If Gerardo Hernandez didn’t want to be gunned down in reprisal for he and his fellow TSA employees’ terrorism, he shouldn’t have accepted employment as a terrorist.
Yes, TSA is a terrorist organization. Its entire purpose is to frighten travelers for political purposes — the very definition of terrorism — by subjecting them to unwanted and unjustifiable searches of their property and persons, sometimes assaulting them sexually or otherwise in the process, sometimes abducting them.
By all accounts, Ciancia was extraordinarily careful in his attack. He asked each person he encountered whether or not they worked for TSA. Those who did not were sent on their way unharmed. He shot terrorists, and ONLY terrorists, with no “collateral damage.”
I don’t have to think that’s smart, or particularly useful to my cause, to admire both the morality of the action and the careful restraint with which it was performed.
The world would be a much nicer place if every government employee dreamed dark dreams of Paul Ciancia and his potential copycats every night, arrived at work every morning with those dreams very much in mind, and aspired only to keep a low, polite profile and cause no offense until such time as he or she could leave the life of crime and find a real job.
Alternately the TSA might just be a bloated, spectacularly inefficient government organization trying to keep dangerous weapons like bombs and knives off planes, along with dangerous people who might use them, while erring on the side of "over-reach" where any gray areas occur. Most TSA employees are just poorly paid people who have been fighting for over 10 years to unionize in the face of fierce government opposition (imagine that, government employees battling government agencies). They don't view themselves as fulfilling a mandate to "frighten travelers for political purposes" because no such mandate exist. These TSA employees are not philosophers. They do not test their actions by viewing the morality of them through the lens of various world-views (especially radical minority ones that most people have never heard about) before acting. If they have though about it, they probably see themselves as showing up to work every day to a job that is thankless an boring, but at least does some good as they are keeping people safe. That's it. If you have a problem with the TSA philosophically, confront it on a philosophical level and enact change there. Do it legislatively. Convince people of the bloat, the waste, and the ineffectiveness and change the laws. But don't gun down some poor guy that has probably spent some time fighting the TSA itself for better treatment and who doesn't, for one single second, subscribe to or believe any of the things you're accusing him of believing or subscribing to. There are very strong arguments to be made on both sides of the debate regarding TSA, since any thinking person knows that there is a massive tension between liberty and security, and we have an unfathomable number of laws written in our society to try an navigate these gray lines. He is the very definition of a terrorist, and just bolstered the case for intensive security checkpoints and weapons screening at airports unimaginably in the public's eye, and more importantly for his "cause", in the eyes of the decision makers in the government. Ciancia is both a coward and a fool. EDIT: I have a little more to add. It's an anecdote I've been meaning to share for a while and this is probably as good a thread as any. When I was travelling back from my honeymoon at New York's LaGuardia airport there was a significant delay. This was a few months ago when that Southwest plane's landing gear collapsed, tearing up the runway and causing many flights to be cancelled or significantly delayed. We were flying out the day after. Anyway, we got there at our regularly scheduled time, and my wife got selected for a pat down because her sequin skirt was wreaking havoc with the metal detector. Annoying but it actually didn't take too long, -3 extra minutes in a room with a couple female agents. . Turns out we had plenty of time as our flight was delayed 4 hours. The bigger crime was that TSA stole my coffee. I was very sleepy, and it was exceptionally delicious, and I had about a half a cup left when I got to the security checkpoint and I couldn't take it with me. Oh well. Anyway, we get to our terminal and it is crowded. We are one of the very few people to snag a seat, and very quickly they filled and people started laying out on the floor and over into the hallways. We sat uncomfortably for about an hour when we first saw "The Guy." The Guy was interesting in that he was dressed in a sort of long white robe-type garb and a head wrap, with a long full beard. He kind of wandered into the terminal and looked around a bit before setting down in a corner on the floor. He asked a person nearby some question I couldn't hear, and they had a little back and forth exchange in which he appeared to have trouble understanding/communicating. Definitely foreign born. Anyway, because he was the most interesting character in the terminal so far (and there were some interesting ones, not in a good way), I'm mentally trying to place him. Based off the head wrap and not much else, I'm thinking the dude is a Sikh, but who knows? That's was just a guess and I was entertaining myself trying to flesh it out. There aren't too many Sikhs in the US, but Detroit, where I was flying to, has one of the larger populations of them. I joked to my wife that the poor guy must get so many stares from people on planes being obviously foreign and sporting the beard and head wrap. Probably a lot of "random selections" in the TSA line too. I shit you not, so sooner do I say this does The Guy get up with his bag and shuffle over to the charging station where he crouches low over it and reaches in. He proceeds to pull out a shitty black cell phone, reach into his robes and pull out another shitty black cell phone that looks identical, then places the cell phone he pulled from the black bag back into it. He then tucks the other phone back into his robe, doesn't charge either of them, and shuffles away. I start laughing because that was hilarious. I was just joking about him being profiled and dude literally hunches over and reveals two identical cell phones, one on his person and one in a bag, and if you've watched any amount of action dramas in popular culture, you now know that dude has a bomb and he just checked the detonator in the bag. I mean, come on. So yeah. Way to fit a stereotype. A bit more time passes and The Guy gets lucky and snags a seat when someone gets up. He mashes in between two people and tucks his bag under his chair. The dude looks keeps looking around in what looks like a suspicious/nervous manner. We both notice he is checking out the people around him hardcore. What does this mean, if anything? Well, he's flanked by two young girls in shorts, and it's really hard to tell if he is nervous or just creepin. I really don't know what his life philosophy or religious views are, but it's entirely plausible that if he leads any sort of extremely conservative religious life that preaches modesty, he might be in candyland when it comes to hot young chicks in shorts sitting in close proximity. Bottom line is that the guy is trying to look at the people around him without being too obvious and he is failing more spectactularly than I have ever seen a person fail at it. He is Captain Obvious. I really can't figure out if he is scared of getting caught looking down that girl's shirt or if he is scared that she knows about his bomb. Did I mention I was bored? We're about two hours into our four hour delay when I look up and see that The Guy is missing. I look over to his seat and it is empty, but there is his black bag tucked under it in the crowded terminal. I scan around and see him about 100ft away, heading into the men's room. Okay. So this is where I am wondering what this guy is thinking leaving his bag behind in a crowded terminal. I couldn't imagine doing that. Not least because I'm terrified of it being snatched since that is extremely common for thieves to do, but also because of the omnipresent, incessant, loud, ANNOYING* recordings I have to listen to every time I travel in any airport about not leaving your bag unattended and alerting security if you see one. It is grating. So yeah. WTF dude? How do you not understand how you're not supposed to leave your bag unattended? Is it the language barrier or is it something else? At this point my wife is kind of raising an eyebrow. So I tell her "Listen, it's fine. He's just a foreign Eastern dude that checked a cell phone from his bag with one on his person before leaving that bag in the terminal and walking away from it. Happens all the time." I was mostly joking, because I really do believe that his happens all the time to the point of being boring to security, but the cell phones thing was a little weird I have to admit to myself. So whatevs. We wait with baited breath to wait for him to walk out of the bathroom and he does...and proceeds to turn left and walk down the escalator marked "EXIT and Baggage Claim." W. T. F. Now at this point I am thinking to myself that yes, this is totally mundane. I have a better chance of winning the lottery than having this be a Bad Situation. But thinking pragmatically about the thousands of times I've heard those unattended bag warnings, I reason that if there was ever a situation where one should report an unattended bag, -*this is probably it*. Plus I remember my cup of coffee. If my tax dollars are going to fund a billion dollar organization that steals my coffee, I'll be goddamned if I'm not going to make them do the job they were actually created to do. If they can check my coffee they can check that motherfucking bag. So I get up, walk into the hallway, and within a few feet I run into a TSA agent who looked like he was hurrying to somewhere, and it goes a little something like this: Me: Hey, um, so this is probably no big deal, but there is an unattended bag over there. Agent 1: Oh ok, thanks Me: Yeah and it was a little weird because he pulled out two phones, one from that bag and one from his robes, looked at them both then put the one in the bag back and then took off. I'm sure it's nothing. Agent 1: Ok, yeah, that happens all the time. If he doesn't come back in 10 minutes just come find me (he proceeds to walk off) Me: (walking towards him) Uh, he left the bag, went to the bathroom, and then went down the escalators to the exit... Agent 1: (still trying to walk away) Oh yeah, like I said we get that all the time. Me: Do you just wanna check it real quick? Do you wanna know where the bag is? TSA 1: Where is it? Me: Right under that seat over there, dude has been gone for about 10 minutes. TSA 1: Alright, yeah, like I said if he doesn't come back just come find me or you can go to any agent (jots quickly away). Well that didn't go how I expected. I return to my wife who is incredulous when I tell her what happened. She got her ass patted because her skirt was shiny and these clowns can't be bothered to glance in an unattended bag per those mind-numbing non-stop announcements? So we sit there staring at that bag for a few more minutes. I'm tempted to just walk over there and open it, but I fucking know it's just going have like, some underwear, a cell phone, and and apple and a bottled water, and I'll get to look like some shady asshole that went through some stranger's bag. I shouldn't have to be in this position. Fuck you TSA. I decide that I'm going to find more agents and tell them. So that's what I do. I head out of the terminal and down the hall to the first security checkpoint where there is a podium around which three agents are standing looking bored and making small talk. I approach and tell them about the bag and The Guy. Agent 2: You mean he just up and left? Me: Yeah. Agent 3: What he look like? Me: Long white robes, head wrap, long beard, definitely foreign. Agent 2: Alright well if he doesn't come back in 10 minutes let us know. Me: Are you serious, it's been 10 minutes since I spoke with the first TSA agent, and he's not back! Agent 3: Ok, where it that bag? (I proceed to point out the gate within view and where the bag is roughly) Agent 2: Ok now that gate over there, that's not our sector Me: Huh? Agent 2: Yeah, that's out of our sector, what you need to do is see that wall over there by the gate and see that phone on it? You need go to that phone and call the agents from there cause that's not our sector. Me: Are you seriously telling me to walk back into a gate where there might be a security issue in order to call TSA after talking with no less than 4 TSA agents about it? That's why I'm talking to you, -because I don't want to go back into that gate until this is checked out. Agent 4 to her co-workers: Alright, I see you all later it's time for my break be back in 15. Agents 2 & 3: Ok, see you later. Me: Listen, you know the bag is unattended, I've talked to multiple agents and they keep telling me to just come back later, the dude left it there and headed towards the exit a while ago. I'm not walking back into the terminal to call a 5th agent. Why do I have to walk over to a wall phone to call you guys, -can't you call someone from "that sector" to check it out for me on your walkie-talkie? And then: Agent 2: Hey is that the guy? Sure enough coming off an elevator and walking towards the gate is The Guy. Agent 3: That Muslim dude right there? Me: I don't think he's Muslim but yeah that's him. Agent 2: Well he's going back to his bag now it looks like so I don't see an issue. If he leaves it alone again let us know. Me: .... So I head back to the terminal gate defeated. I dunno. Call me crazy, but if there was ever a time for the TSA to check a bag it was that. An unattended bag where the owner walked to the exit and remained away for at least a half an hour. But no. It wasn't meant to be. I've heard the narrative of the TSA that OP and others have presented. What I found wasn't an evil political organization with an agenda. I found bored workers that were more than a little lazy that just couldn't be bothered. I couldn't have talked them into profiling or "violating the rights" of That Guy to save my life. They were more concerned with grabbing a snack or passing the buck onto one of their co-workers. I'm convinced that if stealing my coffee required any effort beyond glancing at a nearby garbage can and telling me I couldn't have it, I'd still have that too. These are the people that Ciancia was gunning down. Bored. Indifferent. Not interested in stripping away even an ounce of your freedom in the slightest. They show up for a paycheck, and do what they're trained to do and nothing more, but often less. To paint them as something more and worthy of death as OP had done...well frankly, it's disgusting to me and displays a spectacular shallowness of thought. Intellectually weak as well as callous.Yes, TSA is a terrorist organization. Its entire purpose is to frighten travelers for political purposes
He shot terrorists, and ONLY terrorists, with no “collateral damage.”
If you support murder, you create a world that is fertile for it. It's likely that someone could be found that views Thomas Knapp to be a terrorist. By his measure, that is enough. His argument is dangerously flawed.To riff on Gibbs: If Gerardo Hernandez didn’t want to be gunned down in reprisal for he and his fellow TSA employees’ terrorism, he shouldn’t have accepted employment as a terrorist.
This is the dumbest thing I've read in weeks. It's the sort of idiotic hyper-exaggeration that makes me never want to read any piece from this website again. I genuinely don't understand the anti-TSA argument, if someone with sense wants to take a moment to lay it out for me. If we didn't screen people who got on planes, how would we stop people from bringing guns on board? I don't particularly want to fly in a plane that has a potentially hostile firearm bouncing around. EDIT: I have to go further and question whether any of you who shared this article actually read it. Seriously.Yes, TSA is a terrorist organization. Its entire purpose is to frighten travelers for political purposes — the very definition of terrorism — by subjecting them to unwanted and unjustifiable searches of their property and persons, sometimes assaulting them sexually or otherwise in the process, sometimes abducting them.
I read the post and shared for the conversation. Seriously.
They are not only sharing the article, but the conversation that is being had about it. I post and share opinions that I don't agree with, often to see how they might be challenged. Actually, you'll find a disclaimer in my profile.EDIT: I have to go further and question whether any of you who shared this article actually read it. Seriously.
I ignored this website after reading this article, and ignored/muted the submitter who seems to only post articles from this website and has the same name. I can only assume they are the author, or at least part of that community. I don't think my life will be any worse off if I never read another article that deluded again. I'm not a huge fan of the TSA and think it needs an overhaul, but glorifying this shooter? Calling the TSA a terrorist organization? This person is no better than the government they claim to hate.It's the sort of idiotic hyper-exaggeration that makes me never want to read any piece from this website again.
I invited C4SS to create a Hubski account. I agree with many of your criticisms of this piece (hence the badge) but I don't fault them for having a user account specifically for their content. I wish more publications did. I'd follow NPR, The Atlantic etc.
Agreed. I don't fault them for speaking their mind or only submitting their own content (makes it easy to remove from my feed), as long as they don't fault me for being nearly enraged by reading it. :)
I don't agree with a lot of what this article says, because it seems like a deliberately narrow and skewed view, but I do think that much of what the TSA does is negative PR. Security is of course, necessary but I truly do not think that most of the TSA's procedures are effective in providing security at the level they claim. I have personally seen TSA agents chatting away while things that by their definition are objectionable pass through the scanner. If the TSA were serious about providing security, then I would think that TSA agents would receive intensive counter-terrorism training and that they would carry firearms. They do not. Furthermore, there are already firearms on board some flights, in the possession of air (sky) marshals. Yes, those people are vetted but it's not inconceivable that one of them could snap or have a really terrible day, or else have someone take control of their weapon by some misfortune or happenstance. There are many documented transgressions by TSA agents and personally, I think that airline security needs an overhaul, if it's to be truly effective. In my view, the main reason why there isn't more outrage against the TSA is that most people see it as a very occasional inconvenience as they don't fly often. Think about the 3 oz. rule. Let's say that the kind of liquid explosive that the TSA uses to justify this rule is an option that terrorists would choose. Well, given that many planes are capable of carrying hundreds of passengers, could a large enough group of passengers not simply carry all the material needed to construct a device secreted amongst them? How about "no-fly" lists? Given the sheer number of people flying everyday, how well do they ensure that people who coincidentally have the same name as legitimate persons of interest are clear to fly? Yes, most of the evidence is anecdotal, but the number of anecdotes is high enough to warrant this line of questioning. Furthermore, there have been abuses of "no-fly' lists in the past, including one officer (who I believe was from the UK) who placed his wife on such a list so that she would be barred from visiting him and discovering that he had a woman on the side. For delicate work involving decision making, humans are still the most effective way to go, especially in matters of security. The problem (one of them) is that they are human and they get tired, bored, and have their own motivations and interests and so are bound to make mistakes. When that quality is spread over thousands of individuals, it will undoubtedly have an impact on the intended security measures. Add that to the poor training and pay that many TSA agents receive and I think that the argument against the TSA as it is, becomes more apparent.
The argument is that power corrupts. But someone has to have power, and I'd rather it be government employees who make us take our shoes off than people with guns who make our planes fly into buildings. Yes, the 3 oz. rule is probably misguided. Yes, TSA employees hoarded x-rays of semi-naked women. Yes, they aren't all particularly committed to their jobs. No, this does not mean the organization shouldn't exist, or that it is comprised of "terrorists," or that it doesn't fulfill a useful function. Those who call for the dismantling of the TSA must provide an alternative. Pre-2001 airport security is not an option. Period.
I don't quite think that "power corrupts" is the argument. To me, it seems like the power vested in the TSA is most often misused because the TSA personnel are under-trained and of dubious quality due to lack of rigor in the hiring and selection process. Of course, the cheapest and easiest way to give people the impression of security, power and authority is to have a lot of bodies on the ground. But, consider the stress involved with the job as well as the sheer volume of people they have to screen. I don't think the average TSA agent is reliably up to the task. My argument is: if you're going to have a TSA, quit fucking around and do it right so that real, tangible security is present and available, because what exists now is a gigantic waste of time and money and greatly empowers a number of people who by and large, are unaccustomed to having authority, much less using it effectively and ethically. As for the "terrorist" thing. I never subscribed to that, but I do think that the TSA makes inexperienced passengers more fearful as well as any passengers who might resemble "persons of interest" which often seems to be blatant racial profiling.
I think you're right, but remember the utter lack of qualification one needs to become a police officer in this country and despair over the TSA ever becoming a more effective force. In 1995 it was pretty easy to bring a gun on a plane, for anyone, and now it's almost impossible! I've never personally experienced safety lapses from TSA agents I've encountered; on the contrary they all seem over-zealous in the execution of their jobs. (However on two occasions I've "subverted" the system due to extenuating circumstances and on both they've been understanding and humane.) I would agree that anyone (say a child) first encountering the TSA security measures would be frightened and have a bad experience, but that seems like a price that has to be paid. Racial profiling is a separate argument. Using stereotypes is efficient, unfortunately. I'm also completely sure that at some level the TSA higher-ups have instructed the agents on the ground to profile on the basis of race. There's blame to go around there, maybe, but it's different blame.because what exists now is a gigantic waste of time and money
See, this is where I disagree. People motivated at flouting the system will find a way. There is already speculation that non-metallic guns have been developed. And while you may have "subverted" the system on two occasions, well, you are white are you not? I don't really think that the argument that using stereotypes being efficient is a very strong argument. That's like saying that dynamite fishing is a good way to fish because the total number of fish 'caught' using this method is higher than more targeted methods. While it may be true that catching persons of interest is vital to national security, but I am willing to wager that they have "caught" far fewer legitimate persons of interest than they profess to have at the cost of banning a much higher number of people from flying. Yeah, not flying at all is safer than flying, but not living is also less risky than living.In 1995 it was pretty easy to bring a gun on a plane, for anyone, and now it's almost impossible!
Yeah I've read about the 3D-printable, non-metallic guns. It's an escalation thing -- just because it's possible that soon people will be able to shoot up planes again does not mean we should have been letting them do it easily for the last 15 years. Logical fallacy. I'm white. It wasn't like that, though. I just mean that I've anecdotally had a thoroughly decent experience with the TSA. A close friend of mine is Pakistani and he gets pulled out every time he flies in that direction. Wasn't trying to disprove any sort of racial bias; it exists. Racial profiling is a separate argument. If TSA officers do indulge in it (evidence suggests they do), it's surely because they've been ordered to. The allocation of blame for the sexual misconduct allegations etc. and for using racial profiling belong separately.
Did you click the link? It's not about 3D printable guns, which though non-metallic are not exactly the kind of thing I was talking about. I was talking about the rumors of ceramic guns developed by the CIA. Most of my experiences with TSA have been at points of entry to the U.S. which tend to be busier airports. Certainly I understand that my view of the TSA is not representative of all individual TSA agents, but I stand by what I say.
I didn't, because I've heard of that. I was saying that yeah not only is that possible, it may soon be printable. And yeah, it really just depends. I'm white, you may not be, it's hard to talk about the TSA because really we're talking about two different organizations when we come at it from two different racial perspectives.Did you click the link? It's not about 3D printable guns, which though non-metallic are not exactly the kind of thing I was talking about. I was talking about the rumors of ceramic guns developed by the CIA.
And they would have to get together, and mix them, and the passengers would know what's up. Passengers have stopped the shoe bomber, the underwear bomber, and a few other incidents of rowdy passengers though not terrorists. In fact all terror acts in flight have been stopped by the passengers since 9/11. I think the idea is, sure, they could get enough of it on board, but they will stand out like sore thumbs and have to get together to mix it or whatever. People would step in. It prevents one or two people from being able to carry it out, and now requires a much larger group of people. It's a deterrent.Think about the 3 oz. rule. Let's say that the kind of liquid explosive that the TSA uses to justify this rule is an option that terrorists would choose. Well, given that many planes are capable of carrying hundreds of passengers, could a large enough group of passengers not simply carry all the material needed to construct a device secreted amongst them?
Really? What if they all deposited those 3 oz. samples in a compartment in a designated bathroom, where a designated person would assemble the device? On a transatlantic or transpacific flight, there's plenty of time to do all that without arousing suspicion. Also, c'mon man. The shoe bomber? That dude was asking to get caught. Yeah, it's a deterrent, but I really think it's mostly a deterrent for people already disinclined to kill themselves and others. I maintain that if someone really wants to do something on a commercial aircraft, they will find a way to do it, given sufficient motivation.
A fair point actually, hadn't though of that. Careful, you're probably on a watch list now though. :) True, but the point remains he was taken down and subdued but passengers, regardless of how dangerous he actually was or not. In a post 9/11 world people won't sit there just assuming it's a normal hijacking anymore, they will most likely act. If it was a repeat of 9/11 and some guys with box cutters I'm guessing they would be in for a beating. I totally agree. Also, I think maybe you misunderstood. I'm not Pro-TSA, and I do think they go quite overboard and agree this stuff isn't protecting us, plus like we saw the other day, it's only creating lines at security which themselves become a new target. They don't even HAVE to get on the plane anymore, they can just attack that. This happened in Russia a few years ago with devastating consequences, granted it was an arrivals area, but same principle. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12268662 So again, I may be critical of that anarchist article, but only because they seem to be treating this guy a hero. And although I don't think the TSAs overreach is warranted, I certainly wouldn't call them a "terrorist organization" and say they deserve to be attacked and killed because of what they do. That's just disgusting. These anarchist groups have all these naive and idealistic views of how to take the government down, but no constructive ways to actually fix it or make it better.Really? What if they all deposited those 3 oz. samples in a compartment in a designated bathroom, where a designated person would assemble the device? On a transatlantic or transpacific flight, there's plenty of time to do all that without arousing suspicion.
Also, c'mon man. The shoe bomber? That dude was asking to get caught.
I maintain that if someone really wants to do something on a commercial aircraft, they will find a way to do it, given sufficient motivation.
You might be right, for all I know. That would be damned inconvenient. Knock on wood! I didn't think you were pro-TSA, just trying to shore up my point. I'm not aligned with the intent or thrust of this article either, but I can see where the line of thought comes from. Again, to me it seems overly simplistic and as you say naive and idealistic. When I was younger, the idea of taking down the establishment to create something shiny, new and ideal was very appealing, as it is to many young people. One complaint I do have about our current political system is that real, effective change often takes a long time to accomplish and the length of political terms, while necessary, do sometimes create roadblocks as some politicians jockey for the public's favor by making promises constructed out of half-truths and outright fabrications all while re-framing and twisting issues to divert funds to their own interests. I don't have any answers, but my observation is that a lot of the time, it's us getting in our own way to the benefit of someone who has their hands on the strings with a much better map of the political landscape. As you say, hijackings have been stopped by the public in the post 9/11 world and it seems to me that real security for the public will come with active public participation rather than making demands of politicians, who are likely to (by necessity or choice) choose the cheapest option, which is bound to under-deliver.Careful, you're probably on a watch list now though. :)
I totally agree. Also, I think maybe you misunderstood. I'm not Pro-TSA, and I do think they go quite overboard and agree this stuff isn't protecting us, plus like we saw the other day, it's only creating lines at security which themselves become a new target.
Assuming you're an anarchist - what other literature/websites do you read often? I browse reddit's anarchist subreddits but with the popularity of anarcho-capitalism there there ends up being way too much content that is either just attacking them or debating with them. The debates I have no problem with, I'm just looking for more diversified/relevant content. Any suggestions?
But going the complete polar opposite and calling them a "terrorist organization" as this article did is a-o-kay? That makes it easier to pretend this guy is a hero to you? Labeling the people you see as bad "terrorists"? What makes you and the author any better than the government who labels anyone they disagree with a terrorist? Those TSA employees are stills sons, daughters, brother, sisters, fathers and mothers. They are still people working shit jobs they don't enjoy just to get by. Or is this anarchist author so deluded that he thinks everyone who works for the TSA takes some secret vow to be a terrorist and keep American citizens down everyday? This article was disgusting for me to read. I'm not taking the media's side, or the side of this article. I think both sides are on extreme polar ends and neither are being intellectually honest about what happened. But at least the media isn't pretending some whack job who killed people just doing their jobs is some hero. Those TSA employees are just doing their job, what they have to do is determined by the policy makers. Pointless death. Now we can just look forward to another security checkpoint even before we get to the TSA screening area!"TSA = Hero."
He shot terrorists, and ONLY terrorists, with no “collateral damage.”
Yes, TSA is a terrorist organization. Its entire purpose is to frighten travelers for political purposes — the very definition of terrorism This argument is so amazingly.. fascist? I'm not even sure if that description does it justice. You can see the mental acrobatics you go through to get there and how carefully it ignores glaringly obvious facts that would suggest another conclusion. All in order to paint something as the villain. What makes that label legitimate? And when does it become enough to condone violence against that "villain"? I once worked in a research lab in a building where someone made a bomb threat in protest to animal testing. I never worked with animals, many people in the building never did, but was that an insignificant distinction because we chose to work there? If the bomb had been real, would any employee casualties been justified regardless of who? Is animal testing a cause that's justified to kill over, and to what extent? Just because some simpleton's naive worldview paints someone as a villain doesn't make it so. Just because you label a TSA grunt as terrorist because it suits you doesn't mean you should throw them to the wolves. That reductionism of the world only shows how easily you adhere to black-and-white propaganda.To riff on Gibbs: If Gerardo Hernandez didn’t want to be gunned down in reprisal for he and his fellow TSA employees’ terrorism, he shouldn’t have accepted employment as a terrorist.