Scare or Menace? The latest terror panic

I wish to know more about the latest alleged terrorist event, not clear at the time of writing. How were these devices to be detonated? What conceivable use was the fighter escort given to one of the affected aeroplanes flying in to New York from Dubai, apart from to spread alarm? Why on earth were the devices addressed to synagogues in Chicago, a bizarre cargo destination for anything from Yemen and surely bound to alert the dimmest checker of manifests that something was up?

What, precisely, are these 'hallmarks of Al Qaeda' that we are constantly being told that such things have? How are they distinguished from the hallmarks of all terror organisations?

How powerful would they have been if they had detonated, assuming they could have been? And what on earth do they have to do with the ludicrous persecution of airline passengers, as apparently suggested by former Home Secretary and Defence Secretary  and one-time Communist John 'without a shot being fired' Reid, who said this was a 'cautionary tale' for those who 'want to reduce essential security measures.'

'Doctor' Reid added that these measures might be inconvenient for passengers but were nothing  compared with the 'tragic consequences  of loss of life' caused by a terrorist attack.

While true, this is a classic nonsequitur. 'Doctor' Reid has to show how these measures would have prevented such deaths. If he tried to do so, it would quickly emerge that most of them were not in fact essential.

Hasn't the noisy fuss about this event done the work of the terrorists, who for minimal cost have managed to disrupt two major free nations, and win publicity that it would have cost millions to buy?

If you want to comment on Peter Hitchens, click on Comments and scroll down.