This seems like a relevant comment, why is it downmodded?
Clearly if Israeli security forces are putting bullet holes through laptops as part of standard procedure, that's not exactly the hassle-free friendly security process the article implies.
I didn't vote either way on it. That said, I can see a few reasons why it might be downmodded.
On the surface side, its use of profanity and the attitude that I read from the comment aren't useful for criticism. A more useful way of phrasing it might have been along the lines of, "Focusing on the intent of the traveler may help sometimes, but it can also lead to events such as this one where an innocent person's laptop is destroyed based on a feeling." NOTE: I can't actually watch the video because my laptop has no sound right now. The way one phrases something matters and, at least to me, it seemed like more of an emotional attack than a response to procedures that may or may not be good.
On the deeper side, one event does not a trend make. The comment author provided a video about an event. It's somewhat like linking to a video of an NFL game where the Chief's won and saying they're a good football team - or linking to a video of the Saint's loss and saying they're a bad team. Sure, it is evidence of badness, but it's one piece among 15 this season and the majority of evidence points the other way. Now, going back to Israel, I'm not making a claim that the majority of evidence goes either way. I am trying to say that Israeli security deals with hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people every year and to judge whether they have their act together or not cannot hinge on one piece of evidence.
And, to be frank, that's part of the problem with your reading of the comment: it isn't part of Israeli standard procedure. If one has reports of it happening in a systemic way, that's important. Heck, it's important that it happened even once. However, an isolated incident can be tragic without being indicative of anything. It was a bad thing that happened. It was good that it got press (as I heard she got monetary compensation from the government). However, a report from an organization that looks into this stuff and spots trends is a more persuasive thing than one incident.
Although, if it were phrased more pleasantly, the author might not have been downmodded. Then it might be seen as someone offering alternative evidence arguing that the situation isn't as rosy as the original article implied and that it's a more complex situation. However, the phrasing makes it seem like the original author wishes for us to throw out all other evidence because of one piece they have chosen to present and have that one piece preferenced over others.
If I had wanted to bring that video into the discussion, I would have said something like:
"The article paints a rosy picture of the situation, but it's one that turns on human intellect and 'gut feelings' which isn't a great way to run a security system. People sometimes have gut feelings (conscious or not) that are biased on things like race, religion, gender, etc. and might single out people not because of what's in their eyes, but something else. Likewise, it could mean that sometimes people have gut feelings that are wrong - people might be legitimately nervous not because they are planning something bad - and that can lead to situations like [the video]. . ."
From the original story that the video is connected with: "Then they asked me to wait. Since they had asked for friends and families phone numbers I assumed they might be calling to verify my answers to questions or confirm I really had extended family in Tel Aviv. An announcement played over the sound system, interrupting my break in the sunshine. First in Hebrew, then Arabic, then in English. It was something along the lines of, 'do not to be alarmed by gunshots because the Israeli security needs to blow up suspicious passanger luggage.'"
Perhaps not entirely standard procedure, but sounds like it's not an isolated incident.
While I agree with you that the comment could have been phrased more effectively, the reminder that this article portrays perhaps an overly rosy interpretation of Israel's security practices was helpful, at least to me. It seemed odd it would be sitting at negative numbers just because someone didn't like the way it was phrased.
1. The incident didn't take place in an airport but in an overland border crossing, which hasn't much to do with El Al's security system and thus the article.
2. The official claim was that the laptop was left unattended and mistaken for a suspect object (this is the Taba crossing which extremely sensitive these days). I can't say who's right, but I do know I've never heard of a passenger's laptop getting shot at before, and I flew in & of TLV quite a bit.
3. Both Ms. Sussman and Zarathu obviously have a political axe to grind: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=946037 ("The pro-Israel lobby in Britain") - there's always Reddit for this stuff.
Lets see if I got this straight: there is a comment in a thread regarding the "Israelification" of the United States of America (God help us all) and you think that the possibility of a "political" aspect to the OP's post belongs to "reddit"?
There is clearly a very important political aspect to the changes forced on this nation by the governing class under the guise of "security" and frankly for those of us who came to United States precisely because of the fact that its foundational and historic political basis and ideals was unlike any other country (which is why even to this day people flock to United States and not Israel) do have legitimate "political" concerns regarding the direction this country has taken. (And I can only hope that the native citizens share this concern.)
So, the OP's post is quite on track and appropriate as a timely 'fyi' for any US citizen who is reading this thread as to the possible end-state socio-political regime that the "Isrealification" avenue will culminate.
Clearly if Israeli security forces are putting bullet holes through laptops as part of standard procedure, that's not exactly the hassle-free friendly security process the article implies.