Security and Terrorism: Reduc-

tio ad Absurdum
Ever since 9/11, the US federal government has been working overtime
trying to keep Americans afraid of terrorists, namely al Qaeda (who are
said to be responsible for the attacks of that day). Since that time Ameri-
cans have been subjected to a draconian infringement of their rights as cit-
izens, namely through the infamous USA PATRIOT ACT, so that Ameri-
cans, we are told, might be safe and secure.

This government terror/fear mongering now extends itself at the sligh-

test provocation. Incidents such as the underwear bomber and the Times
Square fizzle bomber come to mind here. Other incidents, such as the Fort
Hood shooter, have been declared both the act of a lone deranged gunman
and the terrorist actions of a man who had been in contact, via email, with
an al Qaeda cleric (who happens to be a US citizen and is now on President
Obama’s US citizen hit list).

The ancient philosopher Socrates used a line of questioning, the so-

called Socratic method, in order to get-at the truth of a matter by taking
the premise of a person’s argument to its logical conclusion; thereby show-
ing the (eventual) absurdity of the person’s premise. This type of argu-
ment, called reduction ad absurdum, can be helpful in critiquing the US
government’s arguments concerning terrorism and homeland security.

Terrorism is a tactic, it’s not an entity. If terrorism is a real threat to

Americans, then nothing short of a total police state can possibly be a solu-
tion.

And this is exactly where America is now headed.

Consider this: a terrorist can be a lone gunman, the driver of a car, or

someone with a backpack. How—short of policing everyone, everywhere,
all of the time—does anyone suppose that the US government can keep
Americans safe from the threat of terrorism?

This is the whole point of terrorism: it can’t be stopped by police tactics.

Terrorism will only end when oppressive governments, who are the targets
of the attacks, decide to address the political grievances of the terrorists.

If we want to keep the American homeland safe from terrorist threats,

then the US government needs to address the political grievances the ter-
rorists have against it. For example, al Qaeda never struck first at America;
al Qaeda reacted to the US government’s decision to attack Iraq (killing
thousands of innocent civilians) and to put US troops in Saudi Arabia in
1991 (which blasphemed the two holiest sites of Islam).

If government fear/terror mongering continues, then the US will, in-

evitably, become a total police state.

Just as with DUI checkpoints, in which everyone who is driving a car is

suspected to be drunk, anyone who drives a car can now be considered a
terror suspect; as is anyone who is carrying a backpack; or anyone who
carries their lunch to work.

If you don’t believe me, then just think about it. If the Times Square fiz-
zle bomb was a real threat, then how could it have been stopped? By
searching every car that goes through a checkpoint before it can get to
Times Square; right? Just like airport and sporting event screenings,
access to all areas will, eventually, require screening.

So don’t be surprised if, when you’re driving somewhere, you’re stopped

at a checkpoint by the police, who look like soldiers, and asked to prove
that you don’t have a bomb in your car. And don’t be surprised if, when
you’re walking to class one day, you’re stopped by the police, who look like
soldiers, and asked to prove that you’re not carrying a bomb in your back-
pack.