Slashdot Mirror
BBC Reports UK-U.S. Terror Plot Foiled
j823777 was one of several readers to point out a BBC report that "A terrorist plot to blow up planes in mid-flight from the UK to the U.S. has been disrupted, Scotland Yard has said. It is thought the plan was to detonate up to three explosive devices smuggled on aircraft in hand luggage.
Police have arrested 21 people in the London area after an anti-terrorist operation lasting several months. Security at all airports in the UK has been tightened and delays are reported. MI5 has raised the UK threat level to critical — the highest possible."
spo0nman adds a link to the Associated Press's coverage.
Update: 08/10 12:57 GMT by T : Several readers have pointed out new restrictions imposed as a result of this plot on passengers' carry-on luggage. In the UK, nearly all possession (including laptop computers) must be carried in the cargo hold; while their rules don't yet go quite as far, U.S. airlines are stepping up their enforcement of carry-on-restrictions, including banning substances like toothpaste.
... not by attacking unrelated countries like Iraq.
The threats have not been "avoided", merely "postponed", until the terrorists have another/different idea, and/or security gets a little lax again.
From TFA: "Passengers are not allowed to take any hand luggage on to any flights in the UK, the department said."
Only passports, wallets.
The mind boggles. No computers, books, iPods, bottles of water, sunglasses?
Smoking, alcohol, and sex are already off-limits or difficult. I hope these are really short flights, and the planes have plenty of distractions for the passengers, otherwise we'll wonder if being blown up is not the better alternative.
First, congratulations to the Security Services for foiling this plot.
Did they need to detain someone for 90 days without trial to prevent this disaster?
Would ID cards have helped?
And how long before I can travel with my notebook onto an aeroplane again, as we all know a cargo hold is no place for a lithium ion battery?
Well, maybe this time there was really something. Let's wait a week or so until things are more clear before shouting things like this.
-- Cheers!
"Just Watch - the mid term elections this cycle will again be driven by raising the alert and fear level to drive voters into a panic, "Trust Our Imperious Leaders!" mode, no matter how corrupt, no matter how self-serving these alert levels are. "
And when something DOES happen, and nobody ever passed on the "classified" knowledge to warn us, you'll be the first to blame the imperious leaders for laying down on the job. Why didn't he WARN us???.
"The Fearmongering must stop ! This is Stupid, Insulting, and Damaging to our Democracy!"
It has nothing to do with our democracy. Search Slashdot for the keyword "diebold" if you are worried about democracy.
Where were you when the voynix came?
"Or, you could say, until we stop bombing the shit out of/subjugating/exploiting the third world in general..."
That is quite simplistic. Did you realize that the main beef of the Madrid bombers was that Spain had driven out Muslim invaders hundreds of years ago? It's too easy to dismiss everything as "the oppressed Third World being forced to strike back at First World oppressors", especially if you subscribe to very simplistic Marxist world-views and lack critical thinking.
Where were you when the voynix came?
One attack every 5 years. Sounds to me (and I guess everyone who lives in an area that deals or dealt with terrorist attacks on a daily base) not too threatening.
Giving up civil liberties for that? Hardly worth it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It's so over the top it's not funny. They're concerned over 'liquid-based explosives', apparantly. MEKP, Astrolite, NG, whatever. They could all be put inside a liquid medicine bottle, and would look just fine upon visual examination.
How about this time we wait to see some genuine evidence presented before we congratulate people for stopping a 'plot'. Because recently we've seen people arrested and even shot dead on the basis of bogus evidence.
I hope, when they die, cartoon characters have to answer for their sins.
Speaking of evidence... There's not a single mentioning of explosives discovered, which would be the kind of thing they would widely publish.
So I'm guessing they once again did their usual thing, let's just hope they manage without shooting or incarerating innocent people for a year, again. Sure this might have been a real plot, but their credibility is wearing thin.
- These characters were randomly selected.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
Why an American flag on a post about a British event?
I often have trouble remembering which way is out of bed in the morning.
I'm a bit confused about the 'alert levels'... They claim that the attack they have stopped wasn't going to happen today, are aware of no other impending attack and that the security measures are just precautionary and there is nothing to worry about. Yet they have used the highest alert level... Shouldn't that kinda be reserved for when they know an attack is about to happen?
i tical-agenda-o-meter'
Maybe they should just face the truth and rename the 'alert level' system to 'scare-the-shit-out-of-the-public-to-push-our-pol
http://blog.nexusuk.org
I am sorry, but with the last two excuses for terror attacks here in London, both where innocent people were shot for no good reason, I have my doubts. Both cases, the police held out on the facts, and continued deceiving people about what really happened for weeks. Each time, they mislead the media and the public by publishing lies, so that they could try to cover up their mistakes.
This is Scotland Yard, this is the UK secret services, this is reality. In a few months, if we are lucky, we will know the truth. And it will turn out that a few people had sent each other emails talking about blowing up planes, or some vague threats, nothing more.
I have no confidence in the UK, USA or even the Australian government. I suggest you question everything they do, and all that they report as fact.
There were no WMDs, Jean Charles de Menezes was not a terrorist, Mohammed Abdul Kahar and Abul Koyair were not planning on bombing anybody at all!
Of course, what will happen now is the the TSA or the FAA is going to ban all carryon liquids on air travel, and just for good measure will throw in food. So now that the airlines don't offer free food on flights, anyone want to start a pool on when the free sodas on the airplane will suddenly become very expensive? Put me down for Aug 18, 2006.
I'm not trying to suggest that this is some sort of plot by the airlines to charge higher drink prices. I don't think any such thing. I'm simply saying that this is the likely result of the inane government action that will innevitably follow: banning all carryon fluids on all commercial flights.
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
The wolf likes it when the boy cries out, it makes things so much easier.
- These characters were randomly selected.
This happened in Britain, not the US.
Granted, the flights that were probably going to be targeted were US bound, but surely it's within the abilities of the Conspiracy to organise all of this is the USA in order to fulfil their Evil Schemes more effectively?
---
"I did nothing. I did absolutely nothing and it was everything that I thought it could be."
...more angry about the hassle this causes, than anything else? Terrorists spread terror, so they've hit their mark. By being foiled the plot does an amazing amount of damage on its own, spreading FUD.
I don't feel any safer by having my liquids/toenail clippers/pocket vibe/ipod/laptop taken away from me, when there are plenty of other ways to kill/be killed that airlines have no control over. I am more angry at terrorists for making American privacy close(er) to extinction than anything else. With a "war" on "terror" there are going to be casualties, my water consumption/music listening/laptop using/game playing/phone usage habits shouldn't be at the top of the list.
Why does the scapegoat have to be the common citizen?
when you are reporting the truth.
The fact is and has always been the same. Radical Islam wants to destroy the West. The best way to bring down their target is through fear. Ignoring it got us in the mess in the first place.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
http://imdb.com/title/tt0417148
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
I am sorry, but with the last two excuses for terror attacks here in London, both where innocent people were shot for no good reason,
One innocent person accidentally shot by police. 52 innocent people intentionally murdered by terrorists. Guess which one you decide to rant about?
You're nauseating, my friend.
Just yesterday, the UK Home Secretary was in the news saying that "we may have to modify some of our freedoms in the short-term" to protect us from evil terrorists. Given the degree of preparedness demonstrated by various services today, it seems pretty obvious that he was aware of the current situation when he made those remarks -- thus it also seems clear that he was shape people's opinion in preperation for the events that are now unfolding in public today.
See: Terror 'may force freedom curbs'.
That's a good point, actually - does this situation really merit that the "UK threat level" to be set to "critical -- the highest possible"? At the highest possible threat level I'd really expect to be worried for my life the moment I stepped out of the front door, anywhere in the UK. No, inside my house - at the highest possible threat level I should be scared to make a cup of tea in case the water supply is poisoned or look under the bed in case there's a monster.
We are not being shelled, we are not being invaded, we are not under attack, we still have a higher risk of dying from heart disease. By calling this situation "the highest possible threat level" the government is whipping up fear and paranoia, and MI5 runs the very real risk of inuring people to any real UK-wide dangers that may come along.
And, like with falsifying creationism, there is no way to be certain the plot was genuine -- at most, you can prove a given plot was staged up.
And, given the repeated circumstances in which plots that were "staged up" actually ended up in shredded bodies in London, Madrid, and elsewhere, you don't see people who have actually chosen their flights and are in possesion of actual explosives to be worth stopping?
In this case, I would rather believe the conspiracy theorists -- no sane intelligence agency would wait until the terrorists are about to board the planes.
As you've perhaps noticed, they were not walking up to or sitting down on airplanes at the time. They made the arrests before that stage, but only after they were comfortable with having as many of the people in the cell as possible accounted for. If they'd acted sooner, they may have lost more of the cell. There are thousands of variables at play here, and the number of people in intel and law enforcement that have to coordinate on such a thing (including the ones who have to be ready to capitalize on the international communications and other business that would have immediately erupted the moment this hit the news) is enormous.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Also, you forgot to mention that they raised the alert level to "Critical" only *after* the 21 terrorists were captured... Should'nt it have been raised before? In short, no. Why? Because it means absolutely nothing. Security at airports, seaports and sensitive buildings remains in alert mode all the time (or at least its supposed to). It makes little sense to have heightened security only after we know something was going to happen. Like you said, the alert levels are more of a publicity-political thing than a real preventive measure.
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who do not.
Honestly what is the goal behind terrorism? Has it done anything for their cause besides rain more crap down on the people they claim they are fighting for?
Cynicism in the US is reaching an all-time high. Half the population blames the government or accuses it of conspiracy no matter what the government does. We need more effective ways of countering the enemy's FUD. We have multiple CSPAN channels broadcasting government live and embedded reporters and still most of the citizenry would rather read and believe tabloids, kooks and extremist blogs. Guess what, you are the government. You are the military. Look at the history of the world and realize that there ARE people who will kill you because they don't like your GOD or covet what you have or have been taught since childhood to hate you out of existence.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
dude, it's a laptop, not a spleen. yeah it's retarded and we shouldn't have to, but being distracted by the real world for 6 hours isn't going to kill you. it can't, i mean you won't have anything on your person to do it with anyways.
slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
Depends if it's a "multiple cell" terrorist operation thingy, and if there's any members that "the authorities" miss.
One plane downed is better than none (in their eyes) so the theoretical "they" could go all lone wolf and try for any result...
Probably best to be over cautious and p*ss off some folks, than to relax and have a few hunder corpses floating in the Atlantic, dontcha think?
I realize you are a troll because no one could possibly be THAT ignorant, but we also have:
1) 1979 Iranian hostage affair
2) 1983 U.S Embassy bombing in Beruit
These were the beginnings of Middle East terrorist organizations specifically targetting the U.S. You can try to blame it on the U.S meddling in Mid-east affairs, but that is a cover-up for the real reason. The fact is, Islam has not progressed beyond the time of the Crusades and anyone who does not follow Islam must be converted or killed. Yes, there was a time that Christianity followed a similar precept, but they finally moved on. Unfortunately, there is no way to win against this type of belief except by killing them all.
I hate to break it to you Bush-haters, but the only thing Kerry could have done to change things is establish Islam as the new national religion of the U.S. You people need to get your heads out of the political trash heap and realize that none of this is about what we've done -- it's about who we are. These people don't care about your political leanings except as a tool to build sympathy for the devil. They would just as soon see you lying dead next to W.
THAT is the reality we face.
Actually, you're the one that's nauseating.
If someone is killed by a terrorist it is bad, but if an innocent person is killed by the police, it is a lot worse. A society where innocent people are terrified of terrorism has a minor problem. A society where innocent people live in fear of the police has a major problem. Hint: it's because the police is the major social institution with legal backing for use of force, and the terrorists aren't. It's a lot easier to convict a terrorist for killing someone than it is sometimes to even get a fucking apology from the police.
"by that I mean people who don't sit on slashdot all day wondering why everyone else isn't building robots" DECS
What if governments were issuing fake terror alerts in order to advance their own agendas?
In the light of false arguments used for the War on Iraq or the Invasion of Lebanon by Israel are we supposed to believe what our governments say? Like when anti-virus companies saying there are virus for MacOSX. I don't buy it anymore.
What do you guys think?
actually they havent said that "it's nothing to worry about" instead they've said they don't know if they have actually gotten everyone involved in the plot... thus the alert level.
course if they didn't raise the alert level and a plain blew up i'm sure people would be yelling just as loud that they didn't do enough to prevent it... just can't make people happy either way.
"If less is more, then eventually nothing will be everything."
We're at war with the Soviets^D^DTerrorists...
And we just has a glorious victory !
next up the 20 minutes of hate?
then back to work, business as usual..
We don't even need a war, just the illusion of one, thank you minitrue for real and complete reports of whats going on, and thank you miniplenty for lowering the oil prices to a historic low of 20$ pr gallon...
the current war on terror is quite like the war in 1984. Where the main purpose of the war was not to capture territories or resources, but rather to reduce the freedoms of the populaces. after the liberation of iraq, iraqies gained some and lost some, but people of the eu and us lost freedom. This victory will no doubt show that our forces are good and fine and great, and with more funding they'd be even better. now they have tightened airport security, most notably by requiring all carryons to be carried in clear plastic bags.
They're no doubt already discussing how to make security even better, as we speak. I'm not saying terrorism isn't real, but it's certainly been boosted since we started taking it seriously. I'm not saying the government is trying to take away your freedoms, but I do think they're forgetting what it is the silverware of civilisation that they're remoulding to shoot werewolves (monsters none of us really know much about). The governments are more worried about the deaths of a max. 5000 citizens the last five years, than meeting the big challenges we're facing (reducing bureaucracy, informing the intolerant, helping developing countries, improving pluralistic democracy, increasing education levels, getting humans to think)
So what if they kill a few of us, including some leaders, democracy is strong because it is NOT dependant on one person, but when too few cares, it becomes a defacto oligarchy.Blah blah sig blah blah blah irony blah blah
* The investigation has been "critical" for about 2 weeks.
If there was a critical threat to the UK, how come the PM flew out on holiday two days ago?
I can only assume that Tony Blair at least wasn't particularly concerned about this "imminent threat" .
Spoken like a true American. We tend to forget pretty quickly. Umm... remember this from October? Probably not. In fact, I couldn't remember any of the specific plots we foiled, other than Richard Reid (if we can even count the Brits acting on US intel as a win for us).
I think its more a cultural difference, though. American journalists like panic! blood! chaos! I bet you might remember the UNC student who ran down some of his fellow students, or the Muslim fellow in Seattle that shot 6 people (including a pregnant woman) attending synagogue, or the other guy that shot up El Al... Notice that we are enemy #2 (sandwiched between Israel and the UK), but of these, we've had the fewest terrorist acts in our country since 9/11. That means we are stopping attacks. The reason we only hear about failures and not successes is that our media doesn't report when our side wins, they only report catastrophes (I recommend Michael Crichton's State of Fear -- it's well researched and covers this and quite a few other topics).
I am not kidding even paperback books are not allowed.
But to answer your question -
Well for a start, the last time I flew my luggage was lost but I was smart enought to carry everything that was valuable with me in hand luggage, nothing over the top, I just had one small backpack. But If I had lost my contact lense solution, camera, mobile phone, car keys (electronic, they are not allowed either), travel info and a couple of other things, then I would have not enjoyed my holiday one bit. As it was I could buy new clothes and stuff and was able to have a great holiday.
But I must admit I do agree that some people take the piss with hand luggage.
If this were really happening, what would you think?
The thing about terrorists targeting aeroplanes is that the potential death counts are large, the possibilities for people escaping are slim, and it puts the fear of flying into people. But these aren't especially unique qualities. What if they target, say, a ferry? Or a cruise ship with thousands of people on it? Or a bus (see last year) or movie theater full of people. They aren't as good targets but still real possibilities. All that's happening, then, by making it near-impossible to sneak ANYTHING, let alone a bomb, onto a plane, is that planes no longer become preferred targets, and other places become more at risk instead.
Which means it's the root of the matter - the MOTIVATIONS for terrorism - which really need attacking if terrorism is to be stopped.
qntm.org
* critical - an attack is expected imminently
* severe - an attack is highly likely
* substantial - an attack is a strong possibility
* moderate - an attack is possible but not likely
* low - an attack is unlikely
Seems to me that 'expected imminently' means you know that an attack is going to happen. The intelligence services are saying that they have no information suggesting any further attack but they are implementing the extra security as a precaution just incase something they don't know about happens. Wouldn't that constitute 'severe' or 'substantial'?
If you're going to use the highest alert level for a _precautionary_ measure when you have nothing to suggest any further attacks, WTF are you going to use when you know damned well someone's going to try something?
http://blog.nexusuk.org
Trying to use logic and reason to predict the actions of someone who is willing to blow himself up in a plane full of people is a dangerous game.
If they raised it before, the terrorsts would suspect something, potentially flee, hide and wait to strike another day, etc..
--- RFC 1149 Compliant.
And what is the "political agenda" you are going to claim they are advancing?
Oh, I dunno, how about all the curtailments of civil liberties they've been pushing since 9/11 in the name of preventing terrorism - things like the ID cards and database (which are pretty much universally agreed to be totally useless against terrorism), biometrics, etc.
Are you so cynical that you don't think they might have an 'alert system' just to alert the public?
If the alert system was actually there to alert the public, it would've gone up _before_ the arrests were made and gone down again a bit after the arrests were made (you know, when the threat has been reduced by arresting a bunch of evil terrorists). As it was, they only bothered to 'alert the public' after the matter, and at that point they put it up to it's highest level even though they said they had no evidence to suggest there would be any further attacks.
http://blog.nexusuk.org
I wonder this too, but a bomb on a plane in flight will probably kill everyone on board - not so in a shopping mall.
Higher kill ratio.
Spectacular.
Passengers on a plane tend to be more affulent.
The monetary loss of the plane itself is very high.
Disrupts air travel leading to wider economic perturbations.
I guess that is why they are after planes. But also they go for busses and trains and nightclubs.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
On a side note - thank christ for the reduced on board luggage rules. Why the hell does anyone need more than their book & a passport anyway?
I'd be happy with just that, but according to http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4778615.stm, you aren't even allowed to take a book.
Personally, I'd consider "food and drink" to be pretty essential, but strangely that's not on the list. Of course that could be provided by the airline, but note that the "cheap" airlines (e.g., RyanAir) do not provide this as part of ticket, and charge highly. I would hope they'd make an exception here, rather than taking the opportunity to profit from such an event.
Also, one of the main reasons I have things in hand luggage is to reduce what I have to put in the checked-in luggage. There's both the issue of weight, and in some cases you get charged per bag (RyanAir charge an extra £5 per bag per one-way flight, independent of how much they weigh). So I would seriously hope they are waiving those charges in this time of crisis.
Other people pointed out the risk of fragile or expensive items - according to http://www.ryanair.com/site/EN/conditions.php , they are only liable up to £820. Furthermore, they aren't liable at all if they decide the baggage is "defective" - and in my experience, they do that even if the material is slightly worn, in a manner which clearly wouldn't affect the contents.
News are saying that 21 people have been arrested, and 9/11 death toll was 2976 people (according to wikipedia, other sites I saw gave similar numbers). To attain this number, each of the 21 attackers would have to kill 2976/21 = 141 people per plane, which seems reasonable. That, of course, is assuming only 1 attacker per plane... Wouldn't it be more probable that there were at least 2 attackers per plane? In that case, killing 283 people per plane seems too much... Which might indicate that not all the attackers are under custody.
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
The value to the terrorists of blowing up a plane in spite of these arrests would be enormous. That's why they have to be sure that if there are others involved in the plot, they can't be allowed to succeed.
In addition, it's better to be seen taking some kind of measures than to just sit back and say "See, we're doing our jobs. This one didn't succeed." Even if it's true.
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
If there was a critical threat to the UK today, surely there was a critical threat for the last few days.
Maybe. But do you want to tip off the people you're about to arrest that they should really, really think about getting on that small boat they've got hidden on the coast right about now? If you're watching them and they vanish - then you whack up the alert level. As long as you know where they are, there's no need to warn them that you're in a van near to their house with all your cameras and listening gear.
So how come the PM flew out on holiday two days ago?
And how come he's still not back?
I think that the PM's plane will be subject to tighter security checks and a normal flight.
And the same logic applies - if he cancels his holiday because he knows there will be an anti-terror swoop, then you just tipped off the baddies quite well. The whole press corps would want to know what the emergency is going to be, and he won't be able to provide an answer. Which the press will assume means that there's a classified reason, which probably means an imminent terror attack. About which the PM can do absolutely nothing, as he's not involved in the operational aspect.
And I don't see a reason why he should be back already. This only happened in the last few hours, after all. Does he need to return at all? The country is being run by his deputy; the guy ought to be able to run the country (even in a time of a minor emergency) in the absense of Mr Blair.. if he can't, then he's got not business being deputy PM.
Last time, of course, he was "caught" playing golf, and there was a screaming session. But IIRC, there wasn't anything he could have actually done in that case, other than.. not be playing golf. The whole thing was silly.. what was he meant to do? Sit at home, wringing his hands?
In this case, it's in the hands of the relevant authorities. A clear picture won't emerge for quite a few hours yet. Even if the PM was here, all he could say was that he doesn't know much about the operational details yet, and as soon as he's fully briefed, the press will be too.
There isn't a great deal any politician can do right now.
'No rational religion claims "supernatural" exists, that's an atheist slander.' - seen on slashdot.
The attack would come in waves. As things start to clam down after the first wave, another wave was to be launched.
On the radio this morning (a Washington, D.C., news station) there was reference to a planned 3 attacks over 3 days. I found that odd--if successful simultaneous detonations were carried out, wouldn't the plotters assume that security would immediately be tightened to the point where the chances of succeeding on subsequent days would be much lower?
I wouldn't think about taking any trips abroad in the near future if I were you.
...
:)
You turned up at the airport, got to the gate, observed the additonal security and chose to take yourself off the flight? Right
What's the betting that you just made it onto a watchlist?
Here's the thought. Are we sure there were only 21 people involved? I mean dang sure? Because if there were 22 and that one guy happens to have a bottle of whatever and sees all his buddies go down, there's a good chance he'd try to get on a plane and go for it, especially if they got everyone else and he figures he's next. Kinda the "go down swinging" approach. They're not trying to foil the large scale attack anymore, they did that (at least they think they did, and I really hope that's true), they're trying to lock down the loose canon who may or may not exist. That's why there's a large blanket security upgrade, and why you can't get a bottle on any flight anywhere, even though the threats were against certain airlines going certain places.
Jester
Warning: This sig may be legally binding in England.
I believe that this is true, but I expect all emphasis to be similarly scaled up for effect. In this case, "we need more surveillance powers".
Wikileaks, no DNS
no terrorist **in his right mind** would try to put his "sub-plot" into action
I have emphasized the part that may have caused your misunderstanding.
I don't think the Jihadists would ever get tired of blowing up airplanes if it were easy. The A380 will be a very tempting target—kill 800 people at a time in a brand-new very expensive aircraft that is a symbol of European technology.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Are we sure there were only 21 people involved? I mean dang sure?
My point is that "We think we got everyone but we can't be absolutely sure" doesn't constitute a warning level of "An attack is imminent". It's more like "An attack may be imminent"
http://blog.nexusuk.org
Is not having confidence in the government enough of a reason to leave? An even better question, will it actually solve anything if I left? Is there a government that I would trust, no... and you probably never should!
I have already moved once, I am running out of places that speak english. I also have no reason to think any other government would be any better - governments are just a bunch of people who are ungoverned, by defintion.
I think the best idea would be to stay here for the meanwhile, and try to change things.
It gets worse. Those Slashdotters who have female friends or who are women themselves think about this.
Ever wonder why women take handbags to the bathroom every time?
It's so we won't know if she is on her period. never mind what type/brand sanitary products she uses or when it is being changed etc... Women are more secretive about this stuff than guys are about jerking off. A lot more secretive.
I can just picture the kind of hell that will break louse when they start suggesting "You have to put your Tampax in a clear plastic bag".
Remember that old saying "Hell hath no fury..." ?
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
"We" are the government? What the hell are you talking about?
Sure, Americans go through the motions of "democratic elections" every four years or so. Of course, only a fraction of the eligible voting population actually bothers to vote. So immediately there is 40-50% of the population out of the picture.
Of the remaining half, many have no idea whatsoever about politics or international relations. Their only exposure comes from seeing a news clip on their local FOX affiliate station between quarters of an NFL game. The clip likely shows some Republican talking about "terruhists hatin' yer freedums". It's doubtful that most of these people could locate the general region of the Middle East on a map, let alone nations like Iraq and Lebanon.
There is a very, very small percentage of the population who could actually run for office, let alone get elected. This population group consists of the most wealthy in America. That's not surprising, considering the cost of partaking in an election campaign.
Between those who don't vote, those who vote but have no idea about anything besides football, and the only candidates with any hope of being elected being rich and of the highest reaches of society, basically all Americans are left out of the loop. It's no wonder that many don't trust their government: it's made up of people that are nothing like them, of people who have no reason to care for them, and of people who often go out of their way to make things difficult for most people.
As for the military, today it is mostly made up of the poor and the ignorant. The poor join so that they can hope to get their college tuition paid for, or just because they have no skill of value besides acting as cannon fodder. Yhe ignorant join because they want to "shoots us up some ay-rab talibans". It's no wonder a place like Iraq is in so much turmoil; the stupidest, most ignorant Americans possible were sent there to "fix it up". At least WWII and its aftermath involved some of the American middle class. Things turned out fairly better when you didn't have complete morons doing the work.
So, it is like we always have known: The terror alert mood ring is completely pointless and serves no purpose other than to make people think the government is competent and doing something about terrorism.
Finkployd
I mean this looks like a PR release to me. One of the tasks of the police is to protect the citizens and prevent them to become uneasy. While releasing this information to the public shows that the police is doing its job, it also injects some fear into the population. And we all know that fear leads to power.
...Together, they created today's nightmare vision of a secret organized evil that threatens the world, a fantasy that politicians then found restored their power and authority in a disillusioned age. And those with the darkest fears became the most powerful...
To quote from 'The Power of Nightmares':
Government cannot make man richer, but it can make him poorer. - Ludwig von Mises
Right now, there are people in the world that want to kill you. These people are fanatics. They're fanatics of the worse kind .... religious fanatics. They're intelligent. They have money. They have resources. They're determined. They don't care if they die ... and they're very very patient.
... or do die trying. Either way they believe they will receive the reward of eternal paradise.
Their goal is to bring the entire world under Islamic law
How do you fight an enemy like that? They will never stop trying to kill us. We say negotiations, they hear appeasement. We say peace plan, they hear surrender. We say peaceful coexistence, they plot to grow their numbers and their strength while we're wallowing in our own political correctness.
There is only one way to address radical Islam, and that is to completely and absolutely destroy it. We seek the Islamofascists throughout the world. We locate them, and then we destroy them.
WAKE UP!!!!!
Honestly what is the goal behind terrorism?
This is a tough question, and I'm glad somebody is asking it. My thoughts haven't spent much time on your specific question, although I have often thought about the question of why is it that somebody becomes a terrorist.
The best answer I can come up with is simple desperation. If you are living a life where you see children beggin in the streets and starving to death, you tend to get pretty upset. Now, imagine that you are witnessing a world where poverty abounds, despite the fact that the land you're living on is incredibly rich of natural resources (ie, oil).
Meanwhile, the people that are using your resources have so much wealth that the problem of starvation has been replaced by the problem of obesity.
I don't know about you, but that kind of observation would make me pretty damn pissed off. If you take this anger and mix it in with a long history of conflicting social / political / religious ideologies, add a bit misguided leadership, and mix well, I'm not surprised that there are terrorists out there in the world.
You want real security in the world? Try creating global equality. Don't give up freedoms, give up the notion of cheap gas, or cheap imported goods. Live a simpler life so that people in developing nations can afford the same standard of living that you can.
Unfortunately, I don't hear anybody saying these things. Instead, I hear how we have to be strong and clamp down, "smoke them out."
What happens then? Conditions get worse for the already desperate, creating more possible terrorists, which creates more of a clampdown, which creates worse conditions, etc.
For fuck's sake! The police shot one guy by accident and suddenly we're all living in terror of police death squads. What fucking planet are you living on ?
No but, yeah but, no but...
You know (or ought to) that he was talking comparatively. He's saying, and considering Israel I would agree with him, that Israelis would indeed be way more irritated and concerned about their own military and police detaining israelis and killing them with impunity than they are irritated and concerned about terrorism. And he's right, to boot: a culture that sanctions violence against its own citizens is bound to be far less healthy and have a more terrified citizenry than one which is constantly the victim of terrorism. Compare, for example, Soviet Russia with present-day Israel.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
I agree. The most dangerous potential enemy is not the one which is supposedly equal to you in power (the criminal); it is the one which holds a special "right" to employ coercion against you (government).
If you are equal in rights to your aggressor, then at least you have a chance to defend yourself against him. Nobody has a right to defend themselves against government's use of physical force.
Of course, the vast majority of people refuse to believe that government represents more threat than benefit -- or even that government is founded on and defined by the principle of coercion -- because the vast majority of people in the world have lived under the rule of government from the day they are born to the day they die. This special "right" to employ coercion as a business model is as natural to them as the rising of the sun.
But I don't see how the simple logic of that assertion could be escaped (that it is government, and not the "private" criminal, which by far represents the greatest threat to humanity and peace). No, the voting process does not, in any way, remove the fundamental element of coercion from government.
To drive the point home, governments have managed to kill approximtely 200 million people in the 20th century alone. Even the most evil, inhumane criminal organization -- even terrorists -- don't even begin to approach that record.
If desiring to kill oneself and take out innocent people to make a political point about US presence in the middle east is not insane, I don't know what is.
It is easy to call someone insane if you get to make up the proof yourself. But even then, your proof of "insanity" sure is close to western ideals. Consider all the honor reserved for "fallen heroes" who "gave their lives defending their country." It's the same damn thing, just with an ameliorative spin instead of pejorative.
They have sane goals, but their methods are not. Their methods are cowardly and counterproductive.
Sure. Seems to me their methods work exceptionally well. The response to 9/11 has been to cause self-inflicted economic wounds in the trillions of dollars. The US military doesn't call terrorism "asymmetric warfare" for nothing, its a war and so far we are losing big time. Calling the enemy insane just plays into their hands.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Raising the alert level makes good tactical sense. Perhaps you have not thought it out fully.
Let's look at it from the aggressor point of view. They have a plan. This plan includes things like social engineering materials into position, explosives, detonation systems, and other details which have been painstakingly worked out. They have stockpiles of equipment which can be used in an attack. They are merrily moving along toward H-Hour.
Then, along comes Scotland Yard. In one fell swoop, they arrest some percent - let us say, for the sake of argument, 80% - of the people with enough knowledge of the plan and the materials to make the attack happen. They also capture 80% of the materials storage sites.
What is the next thing Scotland Yard will do?
They will perform forensic analysis on the materials and on any computers or plans left lying about. They will reconstruct the plan and the tools to be used in enough detail that detailed information and alerts can be formulated and handed out to sister agencies and airlines. They will gather the information required to track down the remaining 20% of the aggressor forces and materials. They will, in effect, provide the information required to precisely and correctly (if such a thing is possible) set the alert level.
This will take time. The forensic analysts on the computers may need to break encryption. The forensic analysts for the explosives won't be cutting any corners to save time, for the obvious reasons. From the aggressors point of view, there is a narrow window of opportunity - let us say, 24-48 hours - in which it is unlikely law enforcement will know enough details to be there waiting for you.
If you were the aggressor, what would you do in this case? Sit and wait for Scotland Yard to connect your name to the plot and come arrest you, or try to mount what small corner of the attack you can given the remaining available resources?
If you were the defender, what would you expect the aggressor to do? To sit and wait to be arrested? To panic (or not) and try to run? Or to attempt a very probably suicidal attack? Bear in mind that the aggressor profile matters - the IRA is not known for suicide missions, but Islamic terrorism is.
In short, the arrests are a stroke. The appropriate next step for the defender is to expect a counterstroke. Unfortunately, the counterstroke is both most likely and most dangerous right away, when the defender has the least information with which to fine-tune their defensive measures (read, "alert level"). Therefore the appropriate reaction is to raise your defenses, erring on the side of caution even if it means seeming to over-raise the alert level. Even if it gets you criticised by the crucial Slashdot block 8).
I don't know why I didn't think of that. You are absolutely right.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
Note also the bit about having to drink any baby milk - previously held to be only an urban legend
Of course, terrorists don't drink unhealthy substances in the last hours before a suicide attack.
Trust me, I work for the government.
These provisions are supposed to be temporary - lets hope they remain that way but I'm not going to hold my breath. I don't think its hard to make explosives by mixing liquids together. When I was in high school back home in India, we had complete access to a whole range of chemicals in lab, we didn't use gloves, goggles or a lab coat, and we didn't have to ask anybodys permission to enter it, take what we wanted, and mix them together. Even with dilute high school quality chemicals we could make simple explosives, and did for shits and giggles. We even had a helpful chemistry textbook to warn us about mixtures that were volatile. The benefits of a CBSE education in a private school. We were incredibly stupid. I look back at that time and marvel that I have all my fingers, though I do have a friend who is almost deaf in one year as a result of his fooling around. That particular bang cracked a large inch thick cement flower pot, and was in a bloody 500ml beaker. It is not hard to believe that with access to stronger chemicals you could make lethal explosives. There doesn't seem to be any shortage of people with the will to blow up other people. So yes the threat is credible. Worse despite this success I don't think that security forces can change, move and keep up with the technology to counter terrorists without instituing a police state. Lots of people have pointed out that terrorists could just as easily bomb buses/trains/discos/sporting events whatever. There seems to be no way to protect everyone at everyplace. I'm pretty certain most of us /.ers don't want a police state. Increased isolationism isn't much of an answer. Killing the terrorists doesn't seem to work unless you listen to the "nuke them all" crazies and frankly I'm more scared of them than the terrorists. Giving your entire population military training seems like an even worse idea, because you just trained a whole bunch of extremists in the process. In an ideal world we could teach everyone to play nice and they would. And there would be unicorns.
Theres something very badly wrong with our global political system. I don't know how to change it but I think we are seeing the first cracks in it. I'd suspect that addressing the crazy disparities in quality of life would help matters a lot. There really is no short term fix. You need better education, you need a population whose size reflects the resources that are available. You need to have people recognize that their identity is human, not national, not religious, not political. I'm not being idealistic - I recognize how very incredibly hard this is, and how very incredbly long this is going to take. I think the problem with what we currently have is that yes things are bad but theres not much hope for things getting better even. If we don't move in that direction I'd guess we are just going to see a more polarized world with different blocs of disgruntled people blowing up each other, for causes they believe are just or for retribution.
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.
In a few months, if we are lucky, we will know the truth.
If there is actually a fair and public trial, that is. Many people don't realize that the government's interest in detention without trial (or secret trials) for terrorists may have more to do with a desire to manipulate public opinion and cover its own incompetence than with real security concerns.
In an environment where proof isn't necessary and questions are never asked, you can expect a lot of spectacular plots to be uncovered, especially in election years. I'll believe this stuff when it's proven in a court of law.
According to the link provided the consern wasn't about taste but contamination. Aparently Siliva can contaminate brest milk and spoil it in a matter of hours. Meaning that a few hours after the taste test it would have been useless. Also the security refused to allow her to squirt it on her wrist and lick it off to help prevent contamination.
The real problem with airport security is that they fear what they don't know, and typically being the low-wage uneducated types they don't know much...
Collector's Edition
And yet they have in no way improved their own lot. You would think there would be some "try to improve the situation for ourselves" angle but they seem perfectly happy to kill themselves, draw their enemies into conflicts where their homes are destroyed, and alienate those who would have otherwise supported their cause. Just exerting the effort to try and target only military targets would gain them widespread support in the world, and even quite a bit in the US. If it is a war of attrition, they are in a very bad position to last that out. Even if their goal was to turn public world opinion against the US and have us pull out on peer (and local US) pressure alone, continuing the terrorist attacks on innocent people (like this last attempt) is short circuiting that.
Finkployd
I'm sure a lot of Jihadists would disagree with you. They have attacked London and Madrid recently. Strangely, they haven't attacked American soil. Looks like Europe is in much greater danger, whether or not they "fuck" with other countries (which they do).
Alzheimer's patients, sociopaths, serial killers and others are all clinically insane, yet we can and do predict their actions on a regular basis. What's so different about predicting how terrorists behave? Does joining Al-qaeda mean that you have suddenly morphed into a life-form so alien that no one should even try to predict what you're doing?
Or is all this "they're terrorists, who knows what they were thinking" just an excuse to not have to question what you're doing?
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
"WAR IS PEACE FREEDOM IS SLAVERY IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH."
"A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledgehammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one's will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic."
"Your worst enemy, he reflected, was your own nervous system. At any moment the tension inside you was liable to translate itself into some visible symptom."
"Only a person thoroughly grounded in Ingsoc could appreciate the full force of the word bellyfeel, which implied a blind, enthusiastic acceptance difficult to imagine today."
> What is wrong with reading a book
Why is reading an industrially printed novel less wrong than using a notebook-computer?
How about listening to an audio-book? Or classical music? Would that be okay?
Is it because these devices use electricity and the book-device doesn't?
Are ebooks morally wrong, too?
Please enlighten me, I own a lot (as in walls with shelves) books, but I don't get why the technological invention "book" is good as is the technological invention "pen" and the technological invention "notebook computer" is inherently bad.
Maybe you should talk to some of Gutenbergs contemporarys about your concepts?
k2r
You know, I wish it were true, that I didn't have to connect anywhere. This is how they getcha into buying a higher-priced ticket.
Also, my time measurement was for door to door, and with normal delays. An actual direct flight is only like an hour and a half. But, when you consider these factors:
Besides, I get to see the countryside, do some wardriving, and discuss many things with my SO. No security theatre, plenty of cargo area, far cheaper. Cruising through the amber waves of grain, and purple mountain's majesty -- *that* is part of the American Dream that I was taught, not this Orwellian nonsense.
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
Oh and he wasn't innocent. An illegal alien is a criminal under british law. So far most people would not agree that they should be shot on sight but if you want the truth you need to be able to face the whole of the truth.
Live is though, wear a bullet proof vest.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
It is easy to call someone insane if you get to make up the proof yourself. But even then, your proof of "insanity" sure is close to western ideals. Consider all the honor reserved for "fallen heroes" who "gave their lives defending their country." It's the same damn thing, just with an ameliorative spin instead of pejorative.
Good point well made.
"Terrorists" believe they are doing the right thing. We call them evil. They call us evil. It's easy to say that we're just right and they're just wrong, but they'd say the opposite. Really the truth lies in neither position since the concept of evil is both subjective and subject to proximity bias.
You are ignorant. You methods breed new fundamentist muslim terrorists.
The correct way is not using any force at all. If you know where they are, send that region economic help. Do everything to increase happiness in that region, and take no violent action whatsoever. If they blow up a plane, just shrug and say "losers", then move one. Don't pay alot of attention to it, they are, just losers after all.
This method will stop recruitment of new fundamental muslims, whereas a violent approach just breeds new ones.
Unless you take away the reasons they exist, they will exist. Violence can only take away these reasons by killing everyone, innocent civilians included. And that is not an expectable way.
What the father couldn't be the one to do the taste test, if the breast milk is in bottles? Do you get all squeamish every time you swallow that nasty saliva in your mouth? Or - eeeeeewwwww - the saliva in another person's mouth? (Insert generic slashdot joke about poster never having kissed a girl.) At least his is a "bodily fluid" that was created for the express purpose of another being drinking it.
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
I'm running late, so I'll just put the lines on the page and leave space to read between them.
Joe got the boot from a grass roots movement.
The spin machine reminds people that democrats are left wing radicals that are weak on homeland security.
A convenient terror plot spoiled so soon after is suspicious.
He's not right. He's an idiot. He makes sweeping generalizations about an entire race of people, and then some, based on the actions of a relative few. He dismisses all of the bad things done by the U.S. and Israel. He focuses on a few specific incidents in an attempt to imply that most or all cases were similar. You're an idiot for buying into that. Both sides have done some seriously fucked up things. There are insane assholes on both sides. Claiming that one side is wrong and the other is not is why there is still fighting going on today. Both sides need to realize that they aren't even remotely innocent and start figuring out how they can live in peace and hopefully, someday, begin to redeem themselves.
its still what they want
No, it's part of their tactics. What "they" (the Islamic extremists behind this stuff) want is the restoration of the "Caliphate" that used to span territories from the Middle East to Spain, and the resumption of that theocracy's growth and eventual rule of the world. That's the stated goal of these groups, and of course getting the West out of their way is central to that purpose. Reducing western willingness to halt those efforts is the current effort, and they're hoping that making the rest of the west act like Spain (caving in the face of murdered civilians) is going to get them farther along towards their goals.
That is what they want. Annoying you at the airport isn't nearly as effective as actually killing you a thousand other passengers on the same day. They don't "want" to annoy you, they want to accomplish much larger things, and wear you down to make it easier.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
That isn't to excuse the targeting of civilians by either side, but to say that pretending only one side is targeting civilians is beyond ignorant.
Yes it would be, fortunately that is not remotely what I was doing.
Let me spell it out, the terrorists are specifically targeting innocent civilians as a strategy of war. The WTC is not a military barracks or rocket launch site that happens to have businesses in it. The airplanes were not military transports which happened to have civilians on them, nor are the any of the sites the sectarian groups are targeting in Iraq of military significance. Now you may (some do) believe that the US and Israel are specifically targeting civilians and civilian buildings for no reason other than to kill civilians, but it seems pretty clear that when that happens it is either (a) an accident or (b) in most cases, the terrorists using human shields to protect rocket launch sites and such. The two hated militaries have nothing to gain by taking out civilians, but they do have interest in hitting rocket launch sites and military relates supply lines and such. Should they cease as soon as the terrorists move their sites to civilian areas or move civilians in? Imagine if WWII were fought that way.
Look, civilian death is the worst thing that happens in war, and should be avoided. However it does happen and it would be intellectually dishonest to pretend that there is no difference between specifically targeting civilians and hitting civilians while targeting military targets.
Finkployd
Better for whom? Certainly not me, if those measures are completely ineffectual in that they don't increase actual security, but only the appearance of security. I'm surprised that no terrorists have attacked the ridiculous lines of people waiting to go through security. How are you going to prevent that, have security checkpoints before you can queue for the security checkpoints?
The whole thing is ridiculous. They do things merely to be seen doing something, which is often worse than doing nothing at all.
So with all the new restrictions and measures put in place to stop the terrorists now, why did we have the old restrictions and measures in place if they weren't effective in protecting us? If these measures can't really protect us, then why have the added measures? Can the new measures really protect us or is it just a show to have us feel safe. I don't feel safe, I've got strangers with guns going through my belongings and searching me - that's terrorism.
Like the U.S. religious fundamentalists who support the same thing, hoping to fulfill the Second Coming prophesies, and Armageddon?
True.
But the US fundamentalists are not hijacking airplanes and trying to kill innocent people. Similarities can be drawn between the two groups but seriously. Aside from Pat Robertson saying some pretty stupid things regarding Chavez, when was the last time a serious religious leader called for the eradication of all Muslims? And if one did, I bet many Christian leaders would decry it. The Muslim leadership has been oddly silent.
Finkployd
You are a despicable hypocrite. Their grievances are real, stop whitewashing them. I do not enjoy the threat posed by terrorism either, but I do condemn our own actions.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
"The U.S.A. buys oil, and thus transfers massive wealth to the Arab lands. If this does not benefit enough Arab people to suit you, clean your house."
The terrorists are saying, "We could clean our house if the USA would stop propping up tyrannical monarchies and overthrowing democratically elected governments, so we are taking the first step in overthrowing them, which is to remove their military support from the USA."
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
A terrorist organization is like any other organization - it's primary goal is to insure the continuation of the organization.
They start out as a group with a certain goal - erradication if Isreal, independence from a particular government, etc. But the organization then develops, and you get a power structure. People are running the organization, people are members of the organization, people are recruiting new members to the organization. To the people in that oganization, who conduct their lives around the organization's goals, actually ACHIEVING the goal becomes an ancillary concern. Participation is the reward, and for those at the top, being at the top is a strong incentive to keep the organization going.
The only thing that organizations like Islamic Jihad, for example, dislike more than Isreal would be the destruction of Israel - because then you don't need Islamic Jihad anymore. The goal that started the fight has been replaced by the goal of conducting the fight. The IDEOLOGY is still 'Destroy Israel', but the goal of the acts of the organization is merely to perpetuate the organization.
paintball
Most of the 9/11 terrorists were actually from relatively wealthy Saudi Arabian families.
A percentage of the Palestinian suicide bombers do actually fall into the "nothing to lose" category where the prospect of their families being rewarded for their deaths is actually part of their motivation but that does not apply to the majority of the terrorists.
You're still trying to think about this from the point of view of a westerner when you assume that you would only do something suicidal if you had nothing to lose.
Mmmm.. Donuts
No, it doesn't. You can fly across the country, diagonally, for under $300 if you buy your tickets well enough in advance. There's no way you're driving three or four thousand miles in a 12 mpg minivan at $3/gal. Fortunately, minivans get more than 12 mpg (closer to 21-24 on the highwa), but the real cost is still quite a bit higher than $300.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Wow, I didn't know that the US troops with white phosphorus were Muslim! I learn new things every day!
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
Riight. And I know many stone-age conservative courts in the "Heartlands" who would have the offender and their whole family stoned to death in the public square.
What? Stereotypes are only funny when applied to liberals? Nevermind then.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Okay. There are currently 17 other articles, just on the front page, that you can go and read instead of bitching about this one. But as there are nearly 1300 comments on this article, or nearly 3 times the number of comments as the second busiest article has today, it seems that people other than you may be interested in discussing the topic. Try, just for a moment, to imagine that the world does not revolve around your petty desires.
just_the_facts wrote: Why do you think Isreal is targeting Lebanese civilians ?
I do not think that Israel is targetting Lebanese civilians.
I know that Israel is targetting the military apparatus of Hezbollah, Iran's proxy army in Lebanon.
I also know that Hezbollah has purposely intertwined its military operations into the civilian population of Lebanon.
Hezbollah's purpose in making themselves blend thoroughly into the civilian population, including launching missiles from alongside of suburban apartment buildings, is twofold. First, Hezbollah depends on Israel to try to avoid hitting civilians while trying to destroy the missile launchers, missiles, and Hezbollah soldiers, so that Israel doesn't have an unobstructed target (as they would if Hezbollah set up their missile launchers in an isolated area in Lebanon). Secondly, Hezbollah wants to draw Israeli fire to innocent civilians so that they can use the "dead babies" as propaganda photos. Hezbollah has a remarkably well organized propaganda machine in action, and the world press is largely providing Hezbollah with a magnificent distribution apparatus for their propaganda.
The difference bewteen Hezbollah's targets and those of Israel is that Hezbollah specifically targets civilian areas, with warheads that contain ball bearings whose only function is to rip through the flesh of the people (men, women, children, the aged and infirm) in the vicininity of the missile strike. Israel on the other hand is targetting missile launchers, missiles, weapon caches, and Hezbollah soldiers. The fact that Hezbollah has purposely placed all this stuff in and near apartment buildings, schools, hospitals, and so on, makes it impossible to completely avoid civilian casualties.
We have entered a new era of warfare: Hezbollah fighters who carry a baby in the one hand, and their gun in the other. Of course, nobody can shoot at them for fear of killing the baby. Of course, the Hezbollah soldier can murder anyone in his path, because the other side doesn't carry babies. Think about it, honestly.
Do you know why the terrorist do and try to do these these terrible things to Britain and the U.S? It's because we have made a tribal war between the Jews and the Muslim world our business when it is none of our business. If we withdrew our monetary support from Israel who is holding the Golan heights, the west bank, and Gaza against the wishes of 60 U.N. resolutions, and we also stopped supporting repressive regimes like Saudi Arabia, I guarantee that the Jews and Muslim's would fall back to fighting amongst themselves and leave us entirely alone. Perhaps this sort of straight talk will make people uncomfortable but I think it's time to break the taboo and speak of these matters plainly and to the point.
Although I consider myself a decentralist Green if I were President of the U.S. I would make an isolationist "conservative" like Pat Buchanan Secretary of State. My FIRST speech as president would be something like the following:
"My fellow AMERICANS, good evening
The United states of America is facing serious internal crises in the 21st century such declining energy supplies, 40 million people who have no access to basic health care, and declining educational standards. From now on the U.S. in a bi-partisan fashion is going to focus on it's own internal affairs and leave other nations and their outdated tribal conflicts to themselves. If other people of the world want to involve themselves in failed nation building exercises that is their choice, but the United States of America shall not participate in these missions and shall maintain a stance of armed neutrality towards other countries like Switzerland while we get our own affairs in order. Focusing on our own affairs will allow us to reduce our military budget by 50% in the first year of my Presidency, allowing us to keep former president Bush's tax cuts to help the economy expand while also allowing us to start drawing down the deficit. If the coming years prove to be peaceful we will slowly start further reductions in the military budget that are the long delayed "peace dividend" we were supposed to receive at the end of the cold war. These funds will be used to build a high speed train system to increase the U.S.'s energy independence to deal with global warming, and reduce our dependence on oil from the troubled middle east. Next we will start a program of HMO vouchers so the poorest among us can gain access to needed health care while retaining the finest privately held medical system in the world. Finally we will increase teacher salaries immediately by 20% and earmark billions to improve the conditions of our schools so the United States can maintain it's edge in global economy in the now maturing information age.
I look forward to a healthy and prosperous future for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Thank you and good night."
I think sort of stance has a good chance of pleasing both small government isolationist true conservatives, and liberal lefties who would like us to focus more on domestic policy. What's more and getting back to the original topic it will keep us out of the pointless irrational conflicts in the middle east. You don't see people burning Swiss flags on the streets of Beirut, do you?
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
Actually, there's a lot of sound reasoning to this economic strategy. The problem is it takes 30 years and no one is willing to wait that long.
Let's take one small example in Pakistan: Madrasas. Pakistan is too poor to build 'proper' schools for its citizens, so parents send their children to religious schools, known as Madrasas. These Madrasas are free, and often provide food and a roof over the children's heads. They also teach extremism, hatred and intolerance all day long. Here's one article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2054719.stm
If there was funding to provide 'proper' schools in Pakistan then the influence of the Madrasas would diminish - Until then they're breeding ground for children who grow up to be terrorists.
I have allergies that can be quite debilitating. That's my problem, and I don't expect others to change what is considered "normal" behaviour in order to suit me. Did I miss your point? Take out all your references to your psychological problem and I'd be more willing to listen.
> Imagine for a moment that you live in a country filled with impoverished people, a country whose only natural resource is owned by foreign corporations and protected by foreign militaries. Recall that your region of the world has been sliced, colonized, re-sliced, and re-colonized by those same foreigners more times than you can count.
Which country would that be, then? Saudi-Arabia? Hardly. Afghanistan? Hardly...the fighting there for the last 20 years has been largely domestic. Lebanon? Again, they seem to have staged a pretty good civil war without western involvement, and arguably have been colonised by Syria more than the west. Indonesia - with a clear local terrorism problem? again, hardly.
The poverty part clearly applies to Palestine, but not the rest.
> Now imagine that every attempt your government has made to carve itself out a small piece of the world's ever-shrinking pie of resources and wealth, has failed miserably, that you are surrounded by poverty and misery everywhere and have absolutely no confidence that your life, or the life of anyone you know and care about, will ever be any better.
Quite often the governments in the middle east are remarkably successful at gathering a sizeable chunk of wealth, just very reluctant to share it with their population.
no taxation without representation!
You're forgetting Harry Stanley, an "Irish terrorist" who turned out to be a Scottish guy walking home from the pub. They got away with claiming he was pointing a table leg at them despite the fact that they shot him in the back of the head.
Get the facts straight. The "bulky jacket" line and the statement that he ran were later shown to be completely untrue. Nor did the police ask him to identify himself. He walked to the station, followed by the police, who opted to kill him after he had boarded the tube train and sat down. At no point did the police panic. Wikipedia article
> and who made a desperate run for it the moment the police tried to ask him to identify himself
This is FACTUALLY INCORRECT. The Police flat out lied to the media about this. And I quote:
However, the leaked documents, which include statements from officers involved in the operation and photographs of the scene, show that he behaved like any other commuter, used his travel pass to enter the station, even picking up a newspaper on his way. He was not challenged by police, and appears to have been unaware of being followed until after he entered the train. Photographic stills show he was only wearing a light denim jacket. It appears that he only ran in order to reach a train that was about to leave the platform. (http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Brazilian_shot_by_pol ice_on_London_Underground_was_not_acting_suspiciou sly)
The officers followed Menezes for 5 minutes as he walked (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Mene zes)
Three surveillance officers, codenamed Hotel 1, Hotel 3 and Hotel 9, followed Menezes onto the train.(ibid)
When the firearms officers arrived on the platform, Hotel 3 moved to the door, blocked it from closing with their left foot, and shouted 'He's here!' to identify the suspect's location.(ibid)
WHY did they wait until he was inside the station to confront him!?!??!?? WHY was he allowed toride on two busses before he got to the train??? ESPECIALLY if he "had a bomb"??? WHY did they HAVE to wait for fireams officers??? Especially if it meant he was going to have time to get on the train????
Furthermore their "identification" of the suspect was grotesquely negligent. There has to be consequences for a mistake this grave. You can't just say "oops sorry" and go on your way.
The interference and prevention of the IPCC investigation is also deeply damaging. There's a reason for having oversight. Suspending oversight just because "it's terrorism" is horribly wrong and stupid. Are you telling me you can't trust the IPCC?? They're not as trustworthy as anyone else involved in the investigations?
The decision not to prosecute individuals was made on the grounds of insufficent evidence
How the hell do you have insufficient evidence in an investigation of a police act???!?!? You're telling me officiers refused to testify? Their notes were burned? What?!???
The fact that there haven't been consequences for the people involved is totally pathetic. It was after the fallout from this incident that I lost all respect for British authorities. If their system is so screwed up to allow mistakes like this without repercussions, and if their most senior people think that there's nothing wrong and that nothing needs to be changed, and in fact react negatively to criticism.
The following seems like a much more sensible conclusion:
The three people killed had no explosives or detonators on them, although a timed car bomb was found later. They had been under surveillance for some time prior to the incident. The European Court of Human Rights held, by majority, that there was an opportunity to stop them at an earlier stage without having to shoot them and accordingly their right to life had been infringed.(IBID)
Remember, Europeans don't have a death penalty. AT ALL. If you object to a death penalty, how can you possibly accept the grotesque incompentent error made above?
Accidents and unfortunate circumstances are one thing. The above wasn't an accidental unfortunate circumstance. It was incompetence. People should be fired for incompetence.
Furthermore giving a soldier or a police officer orders to shoot to death someone when that person shouldn't be shot to death is NOT an excuse for carrying out the order. Orders from above has never been an acceptable reason for the deaths of innocents. Everyone in the military should know that, and it should be doubly apparent to everyone else.