Terror arrests in Miami

[Cylinder]

Probably one of my all-time funniest live TV moments was last night on CNN when they had a crew interviewing the brother of one of the defendants. Off camera you could hear someone repeating over-and-over "that's CNN, baby - you should be getting paid!"

Very funny.

 

[fuelair]

With no offense (really!)

Well, dictionaries are common enough that I just figure questions like that deal with interpretation, not definition.

Yes, dictionaries are common - but definitions in them vary (they would have to legally due to copyright unless they simply copied definitions from out of copyright dictionaries) so.....

 

[Beady]

Yes, dictionaries are common - but definitions in them vary (they would have to legally due to copyright unless they simply copied definitions from out of copyright dictionaries) so.....

Oh come on! Show me a dictionary that has a substantially different definition of anything.

It's been my experience that one of the 1st signs that someone thinks he, himself, is on the wrong side of a question, he starts rewriting and/or challenging the dictionary.

 

[SezMe]

I heard that CNN interview...the guy was barely literate. These guys were a joke. Their ability to mount a terrorism campaign was less than nil. They were dirt poor, dumb as posts, and spouting crap at every turn.

Yet we have the USA AG holding a press conference about this "major bust" What a load of crap. Reminds me of all the heightened terror warnings (are we at red? blue? magenta? puce?) during the 2004 campaign.

Here's my shot at the Randi mil: NO convictions will come of this bust. The whole thing will fade away in a week's time and nobody will miss it.

 

[Cylinder]

Reminds me of all the heightened terror warnings (are we at red? blue? magenta? puce?) during the 2004 campaign.

Which change in the terror alert do you claim was unwarranted? This is the same BDS crap that I hear over and over.

 

[fuelair]

Neutral - without more data

Oh come on! Show me a dictionary that has a substantially different definition of anything.

It's been my experience that one of the 1st signs that someone thinks he, himself, is on the wrong side of a question, he starts rewriting and/or challenging the dictionary.

Actually, you may not have noted it but I am not on either/any side of this - I have made no comments on the prime topic- I merely responded to the dictionary because of the implication that anyone could go to any dictionary
and get the same definition - but given the argumentative nature of many on these threads a very slight difference of wording in two different dictionaries could easily lead to misunderstanding (real or fake) thus wasting time and space.

edit:removed punctuation

 

[Beady]

...but given the argumentative nature of many on these threads a very slight difference of wording in two different dictionaries could easily lead to misunderstanding (real or fake) thus wasting time and space.

It's only in an artificial world such as this that such distinctions can be made. Clinton tried and failed with the definition of "is," and his feet were held to the fire. Those tactics, fortunately, don't normally work where accountability is enforced.

 

[SezMe]

Which change in the terror alert do you claim was unwarranted? This is the same BDS crap that I hear over and over.

Umm, Cylinder, the word "unwarrented" is nowhere in my post. I said "heightened". Do I need to back up that claim?

What is BDS?

 

[Cylinder]

Umm, Cylinder, the word "unwarrented" is nowhere in my post. I said "heightened". Do I need to back up that claim?

Sorry, I thought unwarranted was close-enough to "load of crap" for the purposes of this discussion.

What is BDS?

Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) - the quality or condition of being so singularly caught up in the desire to denounce a action or policy of President George W. Bush that one resorts to pulling Known Facts out of their arse or repeating without question those pulled out of others. See plastic turkey.

 

[SezMe]

Umm, Cylinder, my statement in context was...

Yet we have the USA AG holding a press conference about this "major bust" What a load of crap.

... and I'll stick by that assessment. The arrest of these clowns did not justify the AG giving a press conference.

The "load of crap" had absolutely nothing to do with the "heightened" warnings. Ya need to make sure that BDS arrow is aimed at the right person.

 

[Cylinder]

Umm, Cylinder, my statement in context was...

Sorry if I mistook your meaning. What did it remind you of and what did the Presidential campaign have to do with anything. I guess I'm confused now.

 

[andyandy]

Oh come on! Show me a dictionary that has a substantially different definition of anything.

It's been my experience that one of the 1st signs that someone thinks he, himself, is on the wrong side of a question, he starts rewriting and/or challenging the dictionary.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
http://www.bartleby.com/61/20/F0032000.html
(1 definition offered)
SYLLABICATION: fan·ny
PRONUNCIATION: fn
NOUN: Inflected forms: pl. fan·nies
Slang The buttocks.
ETYMOLOGY: Perhaps from Fanny, a nickname for Frances.


Dictionary.com

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fanny
(2 definitions offered - this the second)

fanny

external female sex organs; "in England `fanny' is vulgar slang for female genitals" [syn: female genitalia, female genitals, female genital organ]

i would regard the two as substantially different - i hope you would too

 

[Elind]

I heard that CNN interview...the guy was barely literate. These guys were a joke. Their ability to mount a terrorism campaign was less than nil. They were dirt poor, dumb as posts, and spouting crap at every turn.

Yet we have the USA AG holding a press conference about this "major bust" What a load of crap. Reminds me of all the heightened terror warnings (are we at red? blue? magenta? puce?) during the 2004 campaign.

Here's my shot at the Randi mil: NO convictions will come of this bust. The whole thing will fade away in a week's time and nobody will miss it.

You will miss it.

Until, of course some dumb jokesters, as you call them, actually pull a trigger or light a fuse. How much smarts do you think that takes before you need to stop it?

 

[SezMe]

They aren't accused of plotting to rob the local 7-11. The big deal the AG made out of the arrests was that these were terrorists going after the Sears Tower and some federal buildings in Florida. You don't succeed at such ventures by "pull[ing] a trigger or light[ing] a fuse" but it takes some knowledge of explosives at the VERY least. These guys couldn't cut it.

 

[SezMe]

Sorry if I mistook your meaning. What did it remind you of and what did the Presidential campaign have to do with anything. I guess I'm confused now.

Well, since I was nagging someone else about clear writing, I guess I should take my own advice.

During the 2004 campaign, we had numerous "red alerts" that dominated the news cycle for a day or so. These reinforced the Republican campaign strategy of fear of terrorism by emphasizing that only the Bush administration could defend the USA. That these "alerts" completely disappeared after the campaign was over makes them all the more suspicious. For example, do you know what the terror level is right now? Does Homeland even use that system any more?

Now we are in the 2006 election season and the Republicans have the same strategy. So they need to "heighten" the public's fear of terrorism to reinforce the strategy. Well, the "red alerts" won't work so when the Feds arrest a bunch of guys whose combined IQ makes Mr. Ed look smart, the AG trots them out mentioning al-Quida, terrorism, etc.

That was the analogy: Both the alerts and the AG's news conference were pure Republican election politics, nothing more.

Uh-oh, I wonder if you will diagnose me with BDS?

 

[Beady]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fanny
(2 definitions offered - this the second)

1. If you see it on the Internet, it must be true.

2. Even you admit you cherry-picked.

 

[Ladewig]

Here's my shot at the Randi mil: NO convictions will come of this bust. The whole thing will fade away in a week's time and nobody will miss it.

I'm not prepared to go that far. Other options include:

1) starting the trial in late October of this year.

2) charging them with conspiracy to whatever and getting a conviction trough a trial (conspiracy charges are much easier to prove than attempted murder or terrorism).

3) telling them that they will be charged with 3000 counts of attemped murder unless they plead guilty to some charges with 10-15 years of jail time.

 

[Elind]

They aren't accused of plotting to rob the local 7-11. The big deal the AG made out of the arrests was that these were terrorists going after the Sears Tower and some federal buildings in Florida. You don't succeed at such ventures by "pull[ing] a trigger or light[ing] a fuse" but it takes some knowledge of explosives at the VERY least. These guys couldn't cut it.

If that were the basic premise for arrest, I would agree with you. But it isn't so I don't.

It doesn't occur to you that they might have been serious?
If so, that they might have settled for something less ambitious if they couldn't pull off a really big one quickly?

Are you telling us that conspiracy is protected by free speech until you actually do it?

 

[SezMe]

We need to read the actual indictment to know what they are actually charged with. I noodled about for it and could find lots of commentary but not the actual document. But my search skills are not great - can anyone find it?

Yes, it occurs to me they might have been serious. And I'm happy the FBI infiltrated them. But I'll be really piseed if it turns out the FBI provoked them or egged them on - but that issue is down the road.

The main focus of my first post here was not the arrest itself but rather the big friggin' deal the AG made out of it. I would hope that the FBI/CIA/Homland/etc. have made many far more serious investigations and arrrests than this one.

 

[Elind]

Yes, it occurs to me they might have been serious. And I'm happy the FBI infiltrated them. But I'll be really piseed if it turns out the FBI provoked them or egged them on - but that issue is down the road.

The main focus of my first post here was not the arrest itself but rather the big friggin' deal the AG made out of it. I would hope that the FBI/CIA/Homland/etc. have made many far more serious investigations and arrrests than this one.

I don't know about your provocation problem. If they, the FBI, had someone pretending to be Al Qaeda it doesn't take a lot of imagination to think that he actually pretended to promote things that Al Qaeda do. You know what choices they had. It almost sounds as if you think they should have been left alone until they proved they were going to carry something out soon or that the "Al Qaeda" agent should have tried to suggest that they drop the whole thing.


As to the big deal. :shrug: It's the news media that makes the big deal and if some unknown lower level FBI agent had made the announcement the reporters would have been all over the AG asking for his comments and why he didn't seem to take terrorism threats seriously.