8/10 Terrorist conspiracy

[homer]

Of course there is a conspiracy . These morons conspired to blow up aeroplanes . Maybe they should try something more original like practicing their religion or maybe their religion is just like every other religion .. BS .

 

[MarkyX]

I thought I'd share this glaring bit of stupidity, from Alex Jones.




Clearly not recognizing the crucial difference between "intercepting a civilian jet over North America" and "scrambling fighters."

Anyone know where I cna get info on the orders specifically? I know what they mean, but I need more then my opinion?

 

[TjW]

He says new york, that's semi-specific, and only 1 in 50 chance of being right.
The chances that it would also be carried out by Bin Laden, of all the scumbags in the world, are even more astronomical. Not to say that he has psychic powers, but he seems to be pretty adept at analyzing trends in the media.

By CT logic, doesn't that mean that he helped plan it?

 

[Darth Rotor]

I am going to bust your chops for a bit.

I totally agree. Michael Moore is blatantly politically motivated, and "hysteria" is a bloated politically motivated word. There isn't an hysteria, there is a general concern and apprehension for further terrorist attacks, which is very much justified. A little bit of fear makes us aware and keeps us on our toes.

Yes, Moore is a political propagandist, but no, the overwrought drama queen act in response to WTC was not necessary. The Brits, with their "get on with it" approach are a far better example of how to deal with terrorists. Kind of like the old Dan Reeves commercial: never let them see you sweat.

A great deal of the media sponsored and talking head incited American reaction of "oh, we must protect the sheep" rhetoric, threat alert colors (what a crock) and the various public foaming at the mouth has been embarassing. East Coast American big mouth small brain approach made Al Zarqawi into a "rock star," which is what he wanted. It has made Osama Bin Laden bigger than life, which is good for his cause. And so on. The old cowboy approach -- "I'm gonna stop talkin' and start shootin'" -- might actually have worked better.

TR's walk softly and carry a big stick has been forgotten. All trash talk, all the time. *vomits*

But the politically motivated will used that and accuse our respective governments that our countries are turning into police states, or that the Muslims are being the victims of racial profiling.

The Patriot Act was, IMO, a rush job and poorly considered. The BS at the airport and "police state" speak for themselves, albeit, "Police State" is another emotionally charged term.

Muslims should indeed be profiled, it is good police work. They should not be the only people tracked, certainly, but you go fishing where you are most likely to find fish, not in your toilet bowl.

My American mother (she is 75) and her shoes are not a threat to any airline. Nor are my nail clippers.

The threat of terrorism is real, and terrorists do exist, this is not an appeal to hysteria, it's FACT. Every thing else is political agenda.

I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Terrorism is a new fact of life

Nonsense, it is an old fact of life. What is sickening to me is the fact that so many people didn't wake up until the WTC was hit. (If you are a Brit, I wonder at your having said that.)

I will point to a few modest examples.

Flight 103, Locherbie

The 1985 Christmas attack in the Rome Airport

Northern Ireland and thence the UK since, at the least, Bloody Sunday

Tanzania and Kenya, 1998, embassies

Munich 1972

Beirut 1983

Israel in 1948, when Folke Bernadotte on the UN mission was killed by Israeli Terrorists.

WTC 1993

OKC 1995 (McVeigh, home grown terrorist)

Guy Fawkes

Heck, I'll even toss in the Reichstag fire that Hitler supposedly had set. Yay, Godwin point reached.

What Moore is saying is that we should sit on our hands.

What Moore has to say isn't worth dignifying with comment. He's a cleverer propagandist than the Loose Change crowd, but that is damning him with faint praise.

DR

 

[Pardalis]

Muslims should indeed be profiled, it is good police work.

I disagree. Racial profiling is a bad idea, for whatever the reason.

Nonsense, it is an old fact of life. What is sickening to me is the fact that so many people didn't wake up until the WTC was hit. (If you are a Brit, I wonder at your having said that.)

Of course terrorism existed well before 9/11, but now it's much more at our doorstep than ever. That's what I meant. With advances in technology (air travel, internet, etc) it is alot easier for terrorists to make their plots come to life and they seem to be more energised than ever to strike the West.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I disagree. Racial profiling is a bad idea, for whatever the reason.

I regret to ask you to leave your ivory tower, and go spend some time with police who have to solve crimes for a living. Profiling is a way to narrow a pool of suspects. The "racial profiling" word game has been part of the propaganda war over a correctly criticized impression that (in New Jersey and New York at the least) "driving while black" was tatamount to being a suspect.

Thanks for trying to tar all police work with one brush.

Way to woo, brother.

DR

 

[Pardalis]

I regret to ask you to leave your ivory tower, and go spend some time with police who have to solve crimes for a living. Profiling is a way to narrow a pool of suspects. The "racial profiling" word game has been part of the propaganda war over a correctly criticized impression that (in New Jersey and New York at the least) "driving while black" was tatamount to being a suspect.

Thanks for trying to tar all police work with one brush.

Way to woo, brother.

DR

I'm not sure I understand. All non-whites are primary suspects?

 

[Darth Rotor]

I'm not sure I understand. All non-whites are primary suspects?

Thanks for your strawman, and the attempt to play stupid. I thought Canadians were supposed to be so darned smart, so darned well educated. What's the matter, aren't you a "True Canadian?"

Perhaps you are not aware of what "driving while black" connotes. Let me know if you have ever heard that expression. It is a sick joke.

Now, since you are playing stupid, let's see if you can figure this out.

If a black man gets hanged next to a burning cross in Mississippi, you would probably work into your profile of perps someone other than a member of The Black Panthers, and you'd be unlikely to profile a member of a Tong in San Francisco's Chinatown

. . .

Unless you had some evidence (like some drug trafficking ring you'd been chasing) that there was a link between that man and the Panthers, or the Tong, and there was thus a likelihood that he was killed by one or the other of those groups, and the murder was arranged to fit a Ku Klux Klan modus operandi, a White Supremacist profile, to divert suspicion -- and thus police effort -- from the real perps.

OK, let's say you live in Virginia, home of The Rock Church, and someone blows up an abortion clinic. What's your profile, Inspector? Does your profile include the hippies hanging out on the Beach, does your profile include poor blacks in Portsmouth, do you profile drunken sailors, or is your profile some Fundies who go to The Rock Church?

Come on, inspector, solve the case! Are you going to waste time looking under a lemon tree for apples, or are you going to solve the case?

If you bother to do some research on airplane hijackings and terrorist activities since about 1970, you will be able to come up with a remarkable profile of your own. Or, you will stick your head in the sand and pretend that "it could be anyone."

It isn't the only place you look, but it is a good place to start.

DR

 

[Pardalis]

Thanks for your strawman, and the attempt to play stupid.

I wasn't playing stupid, I am a francophone and genuinely didn't understand your post.

I thought Canadians were supposed to be so darned smart, so darned well educated.

By this comment, it seems to me that you easily judge people by their nationality.

What's the matter, aren't you a "True Canadian?"

As for the original meaning of the word "Canadien", yes, I am a true Canadian. But I prefer the term Quebecer. Is that OK with you, sir?

It isn't the only place you look, but it is a good place to start.

I disagree. As you posted earlier, there are terrorists from many backgrounds, and ethnicities. Al Qaeda isn't exclusively Arab.

Besides, it's bad PR to discriminate this particular ethnic group, when it is especially the feeling of being excluded from society and targeted by the authorities that makes alot of them join terrorist groups to begin with.

 

[Darth Rotor]

As for the original meaning of the word "Canadien", yes, I am a true Canadian. But I prefer the term Quebecer. Is that OK with you, sir?

Sure, it is fine with me. You wear it well.
Oh, true Canadien? Gee, that means you are a born loser. Good for you. I note in the histories that Wolfe kicked Montcalm's backside.

I disagree. As you posted earlier, there are terrorists from many backgrounds, and ethnicities. Al Qaeda isn't exclusively Arab.

That is irrelevant to my suggestion to you to do a little research and look for a pattern of behavior, then apply a small amount of analysis using sets, groups, and probability.

Because ALL terrorists are not Arabs does not mean one should not profile Arabs, particularly Muslim Arabs. (You, I hope, understand that all Arabs are not Muslims. For example, about 8% of Syrians are Christian, and 30+ % of Lebanese are Christian.) You might note that the initial profile in Spain, after 3/11/04 was ETA! Basques, not Arabs. Why was that? It almost fit the profile, and if I was a Spanish cop, it'd probably be the first place I looked. But ETA was quick to point out that the attack did NOT fit their profile, which is an accurate point.

Besides, it's bad PR to discriminate this particular ethnic group, when it is especially the feeling of being excluded from society and targeted by the authorities that makes alot of them join terrorist groups to begin with.

The bad PR excuse is beyond lame, and has little to do with police work and a lot to do with hypersensitive PC whinging.

It is worse than bad PR to tell the lie that looking among Americans for a terrorist is a higher percentage chance at catching one, a canard perpetrated in fear of bruising the feelings of Muslims. I don't give a flying crap about their oversensitive feelings, nor yours. We should allow the law enforcement types to do rational police work without PC obstables thrown in their path.

No one has a right to not be offended. As Bill Maher would say . . . get over yourself.

You didn't answer the other question, which is:

Have you ever heard, and do you understand the term, "driving while black."

DR

 

[Pardalis]

Gee, that means you are a born loser.

I hope that you meant this as a joke.

Because ALL terrorists are not Arabs does not mean one should not profile Arabs, particularly Muslim Arabs.

How do you profile Muslim Arabs? How do you tell Christian Arabs from Muslim Arabs? There is a few Al Qaeda cells in Indonesia, should we profile Indonesians as well? Should we profile Muslims of all races, just to be sure?

We should allow the law enforcement types to do rational police work without PC obstables thrown in their path.

What is PC? I don't know much about police lingo.

You didn't answer the other question, which is:

Have you ever heard, and do you understand the term, "driving while black."

No, that's precisely why I didn't understand your post earlier.

 

[jon]

If you bother to do some research on airplane hijackings and terrorist activities since about 1970, you will be able to come up with a remarkable profile of your own. Or, you will stick your head in the sand and pretend that "it could be anyone."

In terms of terrorism since about 1970, the 'profile' you'd come up with isn't exactly obvious. There's issues of how you'd define terrorism, for starters (for example, would you view all or some of the Afghan Mujaheddin's attacks on Soviet forces while they were in the country as terrorism? Would you view the violence in Columbia as civil war, terrorism, or something else? Can state violence be terrorism?) Do you just mean to profile anti-US terrorists ('profiles' in different countries could seem quite different - for example, until recently the 'profile' of a terrorist in the UK was different given our experience of Irish Republican and Loyalist terrorism). In terms of suicide bombings, until 2001 the Tamil Tigers (not a Muslim group) were seen as the most effective and extensive users of this tactic.

Developing profiles may be useful, but it's certainly not obvious how these profiles should look. Terrorists have also proved to be extremely adaptable, so are likely to change their tactics to take advantage of an excessive use of profiling (for example, it looks like at least some of those involved in planning the recently foiled attack on British planes were converts to Islam...)

 

[Pardalis]

OKC 1995 (McVeigh, home grown terrorist)

By your logic, we should profile all white Americans as well...

 

[Darth Rotor]

By your logic, we should profile all white Americans as well...

NO, not if you learn how to read. Go back to the post where I suggested you search for patterns, not "one of a kind" events. You wish to see the evil "white man" in the wood pile, and your not any better than a CT by taking that kind of attitude. Good for you, you just lost an IQ point.

Thanks for playing.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

I hope that you meant this as a joke.



How do you profile Muslim Arabs? How do you tell Christian Arabs from Muslim Arabs? There is a few Al Qaeda cells in Indonesia, should we profile Indonesians as well? Should we profile Muslims of all races, just to be sure?



What is PC? I don't know much about police lingo.



No, that's precisely why I didn't understand your post earlier.

OK, so we play stupid again. How droll.

"PC" is abbreviation for "Politically Correct."

As to "driving while black" it is a bitter joke that American blacks started based on why they tended (or tend) to get pulled over by police, in some places, with an alarmlingly higher frequency than whites. It is a play on words with "driving while intoxicated" and reflects the problems with the real deal "racial profiling" . . . which has jack all to do with hunting for terrorists in the years 2001- 2006.

As to the rest, I'll stop calling you names. I've thrown enough rocks, and it doesn't further the conversation.

Jon: You will note that the IRA have backed off lately, or weren't you paying attention?

Developing profiles may be useful, but it's certainly not obvious how these profiles should look. Terrorists have also proved to be extremely adaptable, so are likely to change their tactics to take advantage of an excessive use of profiling

Excellent point, though it does not infer that profiling should be discontinued, nor have I ever suggested that profiling is the only criterion for seeking out "the usual suspects." It is a tool.

DR

 

[Pardalis]

Darth Rotor, are you capable of presenting your arguments while remaining polite and civil? I would have liked to understand your point of view, but since you want to keep attacking my intelligence and my culture, I'm afraid this conversation is over.

 

[jon]

Jon: You will note that the IRA have backed off lately, or weren't you paying attention?

Well, you did say since 1970...so I thought you wanted a broader picture At any rate, Loyalist and Republican terrorists are killing a lot less people, which is clearly a good thing, but there's still a significant number of 'punishment' attacks (beatings and shootings). There were over 100 (reported, and probably rather more unreported) in the first 6 months of last year; I don't have more recent stats, but I gather there's only been a small reduction. Clearly, though, Islamist terrorists have recently become rather more prominent.

Even looking only at groups that are currently active on a larger scale, though, how one defines terrorism and where one looks would influence the profile one comes up with. This doesn't mean that you shouldn't draw up profiles, but it does mean that there are political considerations involved in what characteristics you focus on. For example, should the US treat those suspected of targetting Columbian civilians while fighting for right-wing militias there as harshly as it treats those suspected of targetting Iraqi civilians or foreign/government troops in Iraq while fighting for Al Qaeda? Sadly, it also looks like the Tamil Tigers are becoming more active again - although they do not (as yet) appear to be targetting US civilians.

Excellent point, though it does not infer that profiling should be discontinued, nor have I ever suggested that profiling is the only criterion for seeking out "the usual suspects." It is a tool.

Yeah, I wouldn't suggest that this shows that profiling should be discontinued. It certainly should make law enforcement agencies cautious about relying on it too much, though.

 

[Darth Rotor]

For example, should the US treat those suspected of targetting Columbian civilians while fighting for right-wing militias there as harshly as it treats those suspected of targetting Iraqi civilians or foreign/government troops in Iraq while fighting for Al Qaeda? Sadly, it also looks like the Tamil Tigers are becoming more active again - although they do not (as yet) appear to be targetting US civilians.

I'd say the US government should leave that decision to the Columbian government, if it pertains to matters on Columbian Turf. The Tamil guys seem to me to have a local, not global, interest behind their efforts.

*shrugs*

It's a cruel world out there.

DR

 

[Mid]

Apost on comment is free:

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/azzam_tamimi/2006/08/i_bet_you_it_will_turn_to_be_a.html

I have a feeling that all the Muslims detained in connection with the recent police operation to foil and alleged plot are innocent and will soon be proven so. I also suspect that the entire episode has been deemed, despite its enormous cost, to be of utility to a government that is increasingly out of touch with reality and seriously short of public support and sympathy. I wonder whether this was also intended to smear the image of Islam and the Muslims at the time when the entire world can see that they are the victims of a most unjust world order dominated by the USA and the UK who both support and sponsor Israeli terrorism against Muslims in Palestine and Lebanon and who both oppress the Muslim peoples of Afghanistan and Iraq through direct occupation.

 

[gumboot]

Yes, Moore is a political propagandist, but no, the overwrought drama queen act in response to WTC was not necessary. The Brits, with their "get on with it" approach are a far better example of how to deal with terrorists...

...A great deal of the media sponsored and talking head incited American reaction of "oh, we must protect the sheep" rhetoric, threat alert colors (what a crock)

Surely you understand that threat status systems have been a standard part of military life for a very long time?

Having a threat status for airlines simply reflects an acknowledgement that there is a serious and continuing threat to airlines.

You will notice that, in response to this recent hijacking plot, the British, with their "get on with it" approach, upgraded their own threat status to the highest possible.

My American mother (she is 75) and her shoes are not a threat to any airline. Nor are my nail clippers.

I am pretty sure the US Constitution would have something to say about letting everyone but members of a particular religion carrying blades onto an aircraft.

Nonsense, it is an old fact of life. What is sickening to me is the fact that so many people didn't wake up until the WTC was hit.

I can understand why. It's human nature. History repeats. Most Europeans didn't wake up until 1939. Americans didn't wake up until 1941, and even then, reluctantly.

What worries me is more that, far as I can tell, after 9/11 everyone went back to sleep.

-Andrew