Pro-State Terrorists

This story is interesting, which you've almost certainly heard about by now. Someone attempted to blow up an airplane over Detroit. The bomb malfunctioned and the other passengers restrained him.

On Dec 26, I was watching CNN in a restaurant . This was the only story they were discussing. They weren't actually saying much. They had a couple of items they kept repeating over and over again.

Naturally, I was thinking "How does this story promote the State? What are the evil fnords?"

One important point is that the State police completely and totally failed. The criminal met all the warning flags police are supposed to look for.

1. He paid cash for his flight.
2. He bought a one-way ticket.
3. He didn't check any luggage.
4. His visa was expired/revoked, yet he was able to enter the USA anyway.
5. His father warned US police that his son might be considering terrorism.
6. He was on the "terrorist watch list".
   

There's an interesting point about the "terrorist watch list". Over 500,000 people are on the list. That makes it nearly useless. A list with too many false positives won't be taken seriously. (I wonder if I'm on the "terrorist watch list"? I haven't tried flying since I started blogging.)

There are only two reasons that the terrorist failed two destroy the airplane.

1. The bomb malfunctioned.
2. The other passengers restrained him, when they discovered he had a bomb.
   

The second point is interesting. Previously, passengers were taught to be passive against a would-be hijacker or terrorist. The sheep should never try to defend themselves. Now, people know to resist a prospective terrorist, if they're on an airplane.

I was surprised that the suicide bomber didn't try testing the bomb first. Whoever gave him the bomb should have tested it.

The problem with an airplane, compared to other public places, is that the police can't send reinforcements. If there's a terrorist attack in a football stadium, 1000 extra police can get there quickly. On an airplane, there are no reinforcements until it lands.

In this incident, the State police/defense monopoly failed miserably. The incident had several red flags that they're already supposed to be looking for. If the police had successfully foiled the attack, they would have hyped it saying "Look at how awesome we are!"

In a really free market, if you do a lousy job, you lose customers and lose your job. The State police have a monopoly. Some bureaucrats may be scapegoated and fired and replaced with another figurehead. The vast majority will suffer no negative consequences.

In fact, State bureaucrats may get a raise. Via "Problem! Reaction! Solution!", the State police budget may be raised. This gives the very parasites who failed more power and more resources. That is the problem with the State monopoly. When you fail, you can usually get a raise and more resources. When the State fails, the proposed solution always is "Give the State more power!" For example, "The banking system is a mess. Let's give the banksters a couple trillion dollars!"

Paradoxically, a foiled attack promotes terrorism more than a successful one. If he had succeeded, it might have been publicly disclosed as an equipment malfunction.

Al Qaeda "claimed responsibility" for the attack. Of course they will. It's great publicity! Even if they didn't organize it, why not "claim responsibility"? By its decentralized nature, Al Qaeda has no official leaders.

It might have been just one crazy guy who found someone to give him a bomb.

This doesn't really fit Al Qaeda's profile. They probably would have attempted bombing several planes simultaneously. "One crazy guy" sounds like a better explanation.

The criminal probably saw Al Qaeda being hyped on the mainstream media. He was disgruntled. He thought this was his only option.

I saw CNN repeatedly saying "The terrorist will face a judge soon". So what? There will be a fair trial and a fair conviction. That's obvious.

You don't need a secret military tribunal. He's obviously guilty, so it might as well be in a regular court. There will probably be a plea bargain. Even if you're disgruntled with the State, killing complete strangers is pointless.

A foiled terrorist attack, combined with mainstream media hype, increases the demand for government. If Al Qaeda didn't exist, State parasites would have to invent it. There has to be a vague and powerful enemy, so that the slaves are scared and confused.

Osama bin Laden was formerly working for the US government. How many terrorists were actually trained by the US government? State parasites benefit from terrorism, because the reaction is "OMFG! We need the government violence monopoly to protect us!" "OMFG! Terrorism!" sounds true, because there already is a huge terrorist organization threatening everyone, their own government.

More Americans have their lives ruined each year by the IRS, than by Al Qaeda. Most of the people prosecuted by the IRS are small business owners.

Some people think that the World Trade Center attack was an inside job. Politicians exploited the attack to grab more power and more resources. The most likely explanation is the public one. There were some disgruntled terrorists and the State police monopoly had gross incompetence trying to catch them.

A terrorist attack is an excuse for State parasites to claim more power. The immorality of the State police monopoly is not discussed on the mainstream media. In a really free market, if you do a lousy job, you lose your customers.

The "customers" of government are really slaves. They are forced at gunpoint to pay the cost of their own defense and enslavement.

There is no incentive for State police to actually solve the "terrorism" problem. The occasional terrorist attack is an excuse to claim more power and more resources. "OMFG! Terrorism!" is an evil fnord used to justify expanding State power. Paradoxically, the individual terrorists are acting to help the State parasites they're trying to fight.