Terrorism in Oslo? Time for the Norwegians to elevate appeasement to a new plane of self abasement, perhaps cough up a few more Nobel Peace Prizes for Arafat? 282. concerned - 4/10/2002 5:06:59 PM
Gimme a 'Q'. A 'u'. An 'i'. An 's'. An 'l' An 'ing'! What does it spell?
283. Julius Caesar - 4/10/2002 5:29:25 PM
Pfaff's piece is very weak. Mainly because he does not define imperialism other than in terms of brute, moronic military enforcement. Thus, the United States is non-imperial because it does choose a side in the Middle East and blast the other; it does not eviscerate all opposition in Afghanistan; it does not dictate all things.
It is also a tedious lament as to how the cowboy Americans don't learn from the wisened structure of international law (built over three centuries, no less).
Moreover, Pfaff ignores the flexing of muscles when they do occur. The military action in Afghanistan is significant; Israel's abilities are derived from being armed by the American Empire.
I read it twice and it makes less and less sense.
But an interesting and certainly more edifying piece is this one Among the Bourgeoisophobes - Why the Europeans and Arabs, each in their own way, hate America and Israel which I wrongly posted in the Israel thread.
284. concerned - 4/10/2002 5:38:46 PM
Btw, I considered posting 'Among the Bourgeoisophobes' here a couple of days ago but didn't want to seem too redundant.
285. CalGal - 4/10/2002 5:59:13 PM
I read it twice and it makes less and less sense.
That's what I thought, too. Is that the David Brooks piece? He always invents explanations. They usually sound reasonable, but he makes them up.
286. AytchMan - 4/10/2002 6:06:25 PM
jc--
The article is a useful, if a little over-the-top, link between the classic anti-capitalist, anti-modern position and the fanatical Islamists.
287. concerned - 4/10/2002 6:09:28 PM
Re. 276 -
Pfaff's piece seems to me to be the kind of ostentatiously inoffensive cud that Europeans would probably like to ruminate over when contemplating the present day world situation vis a vis the US and themselves.
288. concerned - 4/10/2002 6:12:54 PM
However, for one thing, I believe Pfaff errs when he infers that the present administration is more 'unilateralist' than the previous one.
289. CalGal - 4/10/2002 6:18:07 PM
The Islamist fanatic and the bourgeoisophobe hate the same things.
This is where the piece falls apart.
First, they hate the city. Cities stand for commerce, mixed populations, artistic freedom, and sexual license.
Europeans hate the city, artistic freedom, and sexual license? I'm thinking not. Plus, they approve of commerce. They just want that commerce taxed so that they can live off of a generous social welfare system.
Second, they hate the mass media: advertising, television, pop music, and videos.
Again, not. The same Europeans that are so pro-Palestine love pop music and trashy culture.
Fourth, they hate prudence, the desire to live safely rather than court death and heroically flirt with violence.
Nonsense. Europeans are famously wussy.
I think he's correct that Europeans and Islamists both hate Americans, and that it is for our success. But his attempt to link them together in terms of hating our culture is asinine.
290. AytchMan - 4/10/2002 6:22:02 PM
cal 289--
If you're talking about the Brooks piece, he's not equating Europeans in general with Islamists, rather a subset of Euros.
291. CalGal - 4/10/2002 6:33:26 PM
Aytch,
I know, but the subset of Euros he's talking about are the ones that hate America and Israel, and that's the group I'm talking about, too.
292. concerned - 4/10/2002 7:07:44 PM
Sandwiches at war
293. RustlerPike - 4/11/2002 2:50:09 PM
There was a synagogue bombing in Tunis today. At least six killed.
294. wonkers2 - 4/11/2002 4:53:17 PM
Pandora's box is open. Very sad.
295. Property of Jesus - 4/11/2002 4:59:02 PM
Four of the six were German tourists.
296. OhioSTOPAS - 4/11/2002 5:17:45 PM
According to Yahoo! news, the incident referred to by RustlerPike was possibly an accident. A truck carrying "cooking gas" (?) hit the outer fence of the synagogue and blew up. The synagogue was undamaged and the persons killed were the driver, a police officer, and four (apparently non-Jewish) German tourists.
Still, let's hope this doesn't give anyone ideas.
297. lizzard - 4/11/2002 6:12:06 PM
Fourth, they hate prudence, the desire to live safely rather than court death and heroically flirt with violence.
Nonsense. Europeans are famously wussy.
I once lived in Italy for a year and DO think we are seen as wanting to eliminate all risk from daily life, at the expense of using common sense. I blame it on all the lawyers here in the US.
298. CalGal - 4/11/2002 6:28:30 PM
Oh, we are definitely lawsuit happy.
299. OhioSTOPAS - 4/11/2002 7:11:37 PM
Oh yeah? Say that again and I'll sue you for slander!
300. CalGal - 4/11/2002 7:57:30 PM
I thought people sued for money.
301. RustlerPike - 4/11/2002 9:56:18 PM
CalGal:
Don't try humor. You're bad at it.
Stick with cruelty.
302. RustlerPike - 4/11/2002 10:08:06 PM
PoJ:
Well, Israel doubts the official Tunisian version. Apparently the road leading to the synagogue leads nowhere else, and there are no customers of natural gas in the synagogue.
303. RustlerPike - 4/11/2002 10:09:10 PM
I guess that was to OHIO more than it was to PoJ.
304. wonkers2 - 4/11/2002 10:17:11 PM
RP, Well, if what you say is true, and I don't doubt that it is, do you see the connection between that atrocity and the atrocities Israel is perpetrating against innocent Palestinians? Do you see the connection betweet that event and the Israeli settlements in Palestine?
305. wonkers2 - 4/11/2002 10:18:16 PM
Do you have even the slightest doubt about the wisdom and efficacy of fighting terror with more terror?
306. wonkers2 - 4/11/2002 10:20:28 PM
Do you think that the fact that the Israelis wear
army uniforms means insulates them from charges of terrorism?
307. RustlerPike - 4/11/2002 10:33:31 PM
Wonkers:
Baby, you haven't seen terror yet. Terror will come when the F-16s and artillery go into action, and not against empty offices. When you see these long streams of refugees on the roads leading east - that's when you can talk about Israeli terror. This is nothing.
And even then, we won't purposely target children and babies, like the Pals do. But we won't try not to kill them either.
308. wonkers2 - 4/11/2002 10:38:06 PM
You confir my worst fears. Grab your ass. The entire region may go up in flames.
309. RustlerPike - 4/11/2002 10:38:15 PM
You apparently think we have a conscience, wonkers, because you keep appealing to it. You're wrong. You have about as much chance convincing me not to kill Pals as you do of convincing Arafat not to kill our babies. I want Pal blood. I want a thousand shells an hour on Nablus, and I want to see that stream of refugees heading east. I want to see Saddam dead and the Pals in Jordan. We won't have peace, but at least we'll have a respite.
310. RustlerPike - 4/11/2002 10:46:34 PM
Wonkers:
I think Paris and London are in greater danger than Tel Aviv, when it comes to going up in flames. Much of the West apparently still thinks the Middle East can't reach it, even after 9/11. But 9/11 won't always be remembered as 9/11, wonk. That's because there'll be a 5/14 and a 3/1 and a 10/9, and pretty soon it'll become pretty confusing. The Islamic world is committing suicide, but it wants to take as many of us down with it as possible. You may think Israel is the problem, or our settlements. But we are a settlement. We are one big settlement. And guess whose settlement we are? Yours. That's right - we were planted here by the West, which was wary of Islamic nationalism from day one and needed something to balance it with. Remember the 1956 war? Eight years after Israel's establishment, the Brits and French used us to fight the Arabs in their colonial interest. You think the Arabs don't know all this?
311. CalGal - 4/12/2002 11:38:57 AM
Time to stop the war on Terrorism
Put it this way: If Syria formally declared war on the United States and (somehow) attacked us with missiles and artillery, would we declare a "new war on ballistic armaments"? Or would we just declare war on Syria and be done with the semantics? If al Qaeda raised an army against us and fought with conventional weapons, would we refrain from firing back — since we are at war with "terrorism" and not with conventional armies?
...
The simple fact is that we are not at war with terrorism, we are at war with a brand of Islam. You can deny that, if such clarity makes you uncomfortable. But you cannot deny that a brand of Islam is most certainly at war with us. You can call this brand Islamofascism, radical Islam, Wahhabism, whatever you want — just so long as you remember that they are not Islamofascists because they are terrorists, they are terrorists because they are Islamofascists.
There is a great deal of discomfort with this idea, but I think he's got it right. Nonetheless, I was reading over at RI, where if you even mention the word Islam in association with terrorism, someone like Irv rushes to yap at you for being a racist of some sort.
So we've got an administration bending over backwards not to upset the Arabs among us, for political reason, and at the same time we've got anti-Semitism on the rise in Europe (and possibly even in US college campuses), while no one in the administration seems to worry about upsetting the Jews.
It's a weird world.
312. jexster - 4/12/2002 11:53:55 AM
Damn it.
I came here all ready to roast Caligula and damned if she doesn't post something that makes sense!
Not to mention that I agree with.
Not to mention that I posted an op-ed on the very same topic earlier in the weeke.
The point of the op ed - that the war on "terrorism" isn't a real war. Terrorism is BEHAVIOR. The Israelis can fairly be charged with terrorism.
What we are fighting in AlQ is NOT their behavior but the fact that this behavior is direct against us by a movement and by a nation that wishes to destroy us and our allies.
Terrorism is not an enemy.
313. ronski - 4/12/2002 11:57:24 AM
No doubt much of the support of Israel was based on the fear that without a western presence in the Middle East, the West would be denied oil. Or denied easy access to oil at reasonable prices.
Neither of those things would have happened, however, since the Arabs and Iranians (and the rest of the oil-producing states) have to sell the stuff to the people who have the money to buy it, namely, the West.
314. jexster - 4/12/2002 11:58:18 AM
What Do You Mean, 'Terrorist'?
315. ronski - 4/12/2002 12:01:52 PM
I think the Bush administration has gone just about as far as it can go for now in tilting towards the Arabs and still survive U.S. domestic politics.
OTOH, one nuclear bomb (or similar catastrophe) somewhere down the line launched by Islamofascists on U.S. soil, and Israel will be on its own.
316. Julius Caesar - 4/12/2002 12:05:05 PM
ronski
I disagree. One nuclear bomb or similar catastrophe somewhere down the line by Islamofascists on U.S. soil, and Israel becomes our 51st state.
317. CalGal - 4/12/2002 12:06:22 PM
Ronski,
I think you're right. I posted in I/P that Feinstein and McConnell are drafting legislation declaring the PLO a terrorist organization and denying them offices and visas.
I just read that there was an assassination attempt on Powell by the Palestinians. Has anyone else heard this?
318. CalGal - 4/12/2002 12:08:14 PM
I was agreeing with Ronski's first paragraph. I think if we were nuked, Rumsfeld would win out and Powell would resign or close to it. If so, I agree that we wouldn't want to waste the assets of one of the better militaries in the world.
322. robertjayb - 4/12/2002 2:00:06 PM
OSAMA-At-Large: Day 213
323. concerned - 4/12/2002 4:49:46 PM
Osama pushing up daisys - Day 50+
324. concerned - 4/12/2002 4:51:24 PM
Aiding and Abetting Terrorism: Some Lefties just can't stop (being) revolting
325. concerned - 4/12/2002 5:56:56 PM
'In Praise of Cowardice': A Pakistani Editorialist Attempts to wrap the Islamic Cave Dweller Mentality around such concepts as economics, advanced warfare and diplomacy while struggling to define such within a societal context which hasn't materially changed in 3000 years. Interestingly enough, some of his specific observations are reasonably astute, but he suffers from an absurdly inappropriate tribalistic outlook which would approve of slavery, feeding oldsters to dogs and ritual human sacrifice but not the concept of universal human rights.
326. jexster - 4/12/2002 6:46:26 PM
WRT the Glorious Coalition (RIP)
CAIRO, April 12--Egypt and Jordan deployed thousands of police in their capitals today and restricted access to major mosques in a move to stifle pro-Palestinian demonstrations after two weeks of sometimes violent protests. The security measures were extensive even for the tightly controlled societies of the Arab Middle East and reflected tensions peculiar to Jordan and Egypt. Both countries are closely allied with the United States, at peace with Israel and have rebuffed public demands to close Israeli Embassies in Amman and Cairo and expel Israeli diplomats.
The public outcry, including protests that have involved extensive property damage and injuries to dozens of police and demonstrators, reached such a pitch in recent days that officials from both countries appealed to the United States to intervene in hopes of calming the violence in Israel and the West Bank
Growing Unrest Threatens Arab Allies
329. CalGal - 4/12/2002 7:53:55 PM
Concerned, please don't use such long anchor text, and provide the link without too much editorializing. You can editorialize right below (in the same post). And if all you're going to provide is links, I'd rather you put them all in one post.
Jex, this isn't a place for news bulletins. I've said it before.
331. jexster - 4/12/2002 9:43:50 PM
Further to Cal's discussion of terrorism and my exposition of the flimsy foundation of the Duhbya "Doctrine"
The New Republic, whose frothing superhawk credentials are impeccable (measured by the Weakly Standard)
For leftists, economics determines international relations; for realists, power does. But the extraordinary thing about American foreign policy since September 11 is the extent to which it has been shaped by language. In the terrible days after the World Trade Center fell, the Bush administration grasped for words that would capture America's resolve. And it came up with "war on terrorism." Through endless repetition, the phrase was fleshed out. "Terrorism" meant violence by individuals or groups (but not governments) against civilians, no matter what the cause. "War" didn't connote a merely military effort, but it suggested a broad struggle with the urgency, and Manichaean clarity, of a battlefield campaign.
TRB From Washington: Why all wars on terrorism are not the same
or why the Duhbya doctrine is nothing more than, as Robert so pithily put it (Mote Post of the Month Nominee)
"Talk loudly and carry a swizzle stick"
334. arkymalarky - 4/12/2002 10:59:03 PM
I'll agree with that. I've got to write it down.
335. concerned - 4/13/2002 12:20:21 AM
And if all you're going to provide is links, I'd rather you put them all in one post.
Even if there's no connecting logic between them, and I run across the articles at distinctly different times?
336. CalGal - 4/13/2002 12:30:49 AM
No. Not if you run across them at different times. And I just saw those posts were an hour apart. I was looking at 323 and 324 and confusing them with 324/325. Sorry. But keep the anchor text thing in mind, please.
Part of this is just my own finicky preference; I like to have some idea what I'm linking to. Long descriptions as part of the link always look suspicious, to me.
337. CalGal - 4/13/2002 12:34:22 AM
IDF's Wanted Page
David Brooks of the Weekly Standard points out that we never hear of the people who the Israelis are hunting down and capturing. It is a bit of a media blitz. Look at the people who are hiding in that church.
338. robertjayb - 4/13/2002 12:44:55 AM
The Bush Doctrine, R.I.P....Frank Rich, NYTimes
As a statement of principle set forth by an American chief executive, the now defunct Bush Doctrine may have had a shelf life even shorter than Kenny Boy's Enron code of ethics. As a statement of presidential intent, it may land in the history books alongside such magisterial moments as Lyndon Johnson's 1964 pledge not to send American boys to Vietnam and Richard Nixon's 1968 promise to "bring us together."
339. concerned - 4/13/2002 12:50:43 AM
The Poor Rich boy anticipates wrongly, methinks.
340. CalGal - 4/16/2002 4:10:28 PM
Behind the Rage
This is an interesting think piece, and makes several great points:
a) the hypocrisy of the Arab rage at the Israelis, all out of proportion with their own sins.
b) the fact that they are a shame-based society, and that Israel represents a never-ending blow to their self-esteem.
c) the reminder that in the end, it doesn't pay to ignore their rage, which is real, even if it is hypocritical and largely based on their own sense of inferiority.
341. AytchMan - 4/16/2002 4:56:39 PM
I have a lot of respect for all ancient cultures and this includes the Arabs. There is something admirable about simply surviving for a couple of thousand years.
But, for the last several hundred, they have exhibited a tragic flaw -- the rejection of progress in several key areas including science and political thought. Everything seems to be swept before a religious Luddism.
342. CalGal - 4/16/2002 5:04:01 PM
There have been a number of essays post 9/11 that seek to identify the points at which Arab/Muslim history went "wrong". I don't think there is any one issue. But I do think that the failure of the Islamic religion to secularize is a serious contender for root cause.
343. wonkers2 - 4/16/2002 5:05:37 PM
Why not try for a shorter list of where it went right?
344. CalGal - 4/16/2002 5:07:43 PM
Ha.
Hmm.
345. AytchMan - 4/16/2002 5:21:30 PM
cal 342--
That's a good point. The retreat of Muslim empire from the West followed the truce (and growing tolerance) between religion and science in the budding European nation-states. Puritan ethic and all that ("Work and Invent, Work and Invent, Harder, Harder).
346. Wombat - 4/17/2002 10:38:40 AM
From its capture of Constantinople to the present, Islam has undergone centuries of unremitting political and military defeats at the hands of Europe. A common reaction to defeat of this scale is to "go back to basics."
347. CalGal - 4/17/2002 10:46:17 AM
It's almost like a communal mental illness.
348. robertjayb - 4/17/2002 12:21:29 PM
Shoe bomber's French Connection:
PARIS (AP) -- French security agents on Wednesday were questioning five people arrested in Paris and its nearby suburbs in connection with the investigation into shoe bomber Richard C. Reid, French television reported.
Agents from the DST, France's internal security agency, arrested the suspects on Tuesday, said the report on LCI television. It could not immediately be confirmed.
Reid, 28, a British citizen, has been in U.S. custody since Dec. 22 when he allegedly attempted to ignite the explosives in his shoes during a trans-Atlantic flight from Paris to Miami.
349. jexster - 4/17/2002 12:24:08 PM
Bush Renews Call to Act on 'Axis of Evil' States
Guffaw..guffaw..guffaw
352. CalGal - 4/17/2002 2:42:22 PM
BobbyJ,
Presumably they were Arabs? I can't find anything on that.
Afghan woman attacked with acid
The good news is that her neighbors chased the perp down as he tried to escape, and turned him over to the authorities. He was questioned, and gave 37 more names. Acid was found among these men as well--and some of them were wearing military uniforms, apparently.
353. robertjayb - 4/17/2002 2:48:13 PM
CalGal,
Pakis, it seems:
P A R I S, April 17 —
Police and security agents on Wednesday were questioning five Pakistanis arrested in Paris and its suburbs in connection with the investigation into shoe bomber Richard C. Reid, judicial officials said.
The suspects were arrested Wednesday morning, the officials said on condition of anonymity. They are suspected of providing various kinds of logistical assistance to Reid, 28, a British citizen, during his stay in Paris.
354. CalGal - 4/17/2002 2:50:09 PM
Reid's case demonstrates that Europe needs to pay a lot more attention to how it issues passports.
355. AytchMan - 4/17/2002 4:23:56 PM
Wombat 346--
I guess the question in my mind is whether:
a. An early defeat engendered an insular view that accelerated the decline or
b. Something inherent in the culture caused an inward turn that led to the early defeats. Perhaps a differing philosophical view bubbled up.
356. CalGal - 4/17/2002 6:07:51 PM
I don't know if anyone has been tracking Cynthia McKinney's truly disgusting behavior post 9/11 (not that it was all that sterling beforehand). She's a black Georgia congresswoman, the one who wrote an open letter to the Saudi prince (the one who had his $10 million donation thrown back in his face after saying that the WTC attack was due to American middle east policy), inviting him to give the money to a foundation to help black people, since the prince had such sympathy for the oppressed. Well. Yeah. Saudis are known for their desire to give everyone a chance to live in a free and open society.
But more recently, she has accused Bush of treason, of deliberately ignoring warnings about 9/11 because the industries that support him would benefit from a war.
Turns out McKinney's heavy hitting campaign contributors are from Mideastern organizations and individuals, like:
CAIR
American Muslim Council
Public Hamas supporter
Several mid-eastern or arab names with no occupation listed (although one did mention an "import company")
SLF is a conservative lobbying group, but they sourced it in FEC and Georgia disclosure reports.
357. concerned - 4/17/2002 6:13:43 PM
Been monitoring my posts re. McKinney in American Politics, I see.
358. CalGal - 4/17/2002 6:18:45 PM
No, I don't read American Politics all that often. I would have mentioned it if I had.
359. concerned - 4/17/2002 6:19:45 PM
Check out my link to McKinney's political contributors if you're interested, then.
360. TabouliJones - 4/18/2002 9:29:03 AM
From the Globe and Mail:
"Four Canadian soldiers died and eight were wounded in Afghanistan Wednesday when a U.S. fighter jet mistakenly bombed them during a live-fire training exercise.
Of the wounded, two suffered life-threatening injuries while six had either serious or very serious injuries, military officials said. All were Canadians from the 3rd Battalion Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry.
Sources said Wednesday that Canadian and American officials were baffled by the colossal blunder.
At a hastily called midnight news conference in Ottawa, General Raymond Henault, Chief of Defence Staff, said the U.S. fighter jet was not involved in the training operations and misidentified the Canadian troops on the ground, who were in a recognized training area.
"It can only be a misidentification that can cause this to occur," he said."
The story broke late last night and it is unlikely that officials will figure out what went wrong for several days, if not longer.
361. Indiana Jones - 4/18/2002 9:38:41 AM
I agree that McKinney is a nutball and wish she could go live in some other country more to her liking, but I suspect those contributions flow to her because of her positions rather than her taking positions in response to her financial backers.
362. CalGal - 4/18/2002 10:52:43 AM
TJ,
Wow. The Canadians weren't thrilled about supporting the Afghanistan effort anyway, were they? Or were they just less in favor of it than we were.
363. CalGal - 4/18/2002 10:54:12 AM
Indy,
I don't think so. This was from 1999-2000, and I don't think terrorism and the mid east was sufficiently in the headlines for her to whore for back then.
364. TabouliJones - 4/18/2002 11:15:33 AM
Cal,
Prime Minister Chretien was slow to commit and deploy Canadian troops to Afghanistan. However, he was roundly criticized for his equivocation on the matter. I think that it is fair to say that the majority of Canadians supported the Afghanistan effort from the beginning and still support it --including the participation of Canadian soldiers.
At this point, I can't honestly predict how the incident will affect Canadian opinion regarding the war effort in Afghanistan. There will be much discussion in the weeks to come about what exactly went wrong and what implications there may be in terms of relations between the Canadian and U.S. military and the protocols, etc., involved in co-ordinating international forces in situations like Afghanistan.
I also think that the incident will generate much discussion about the seemingly high level of casualties due to mishap rather than enemy fire --an issue that Slate has discussed in recent weeks.
365. CalGal - 4/18/2002 11:20:03 AM
Have they? Do you know where that article is? I've been thinking that for a while, now--that we lose more people due to accidents than enemy fire. Substantially more.
But I'm sure that soldiers have always died from accidents, yes? It's just that there was more signal to noise ratio back when our weaponry wasn't so completely superior to our opponents.
366. Wombat - 4/18/2002 11:21:37 AM
In the Gulf War, the Brits lost more personnel to "friendly fire" than to enemy action. If the Scud hadn't hit the Saudi Arabian barracks, the same could have been said for the US.
368. TabouliJones - 4/18/2002 11:25:42 AM
Calgal,
Here is the information regarding the Slate article I referred to:
Generals' Apathy
The Pentagon's appalling record on "friendly fire."
By Scott Shuger
Posted Thursday, April 4, 2002, at 1:45 PM PT
370. CalGal - 4/18/2002 11:29:06 AM
General's Apathy
395. robertjayb - 4/19/2002 4:11:34 PM
Listen Up!
The FBI has undocumentated, unsubstantiated hunches that something unpleasant may happen sometime, somewhere. Be vigilant for suspicious activity. Condition Yellow continues.
Carry on.
396. robertjayb - 4/19/2002 4:21:29 PM
Really Scary!
The Secret Service is teaching dubya how to do J-turns. Supposedly he one-eightyed a Camero.
Now if he were a genuine Texas boy instead of a phoney Connecticut-born carpetbagger, he would know how to do that stuff.
397. CalGal - 4/19/2002 5:24:04 PM
What's the second one have to do with terrorism?
398. robertjayb - 4/19/2002 5:55:35 PM
Presumably to enable dubya to escape from a terrarist ambush. And spinning cars around is fun.
399. CalGal - 4/19/2002 6:14:12 PM
Okay.
In Cold Numbers, a Census of the Sept. 11 Victims
400. Property of Jesus - 4/19/2002 7:24:37 PM
I miss Jexster and look forward to his return next week.
401. RustlerPike - 4/20/2002 12:45:23 AM
PoJ:
Actually, I was just thinking the opposite. How the I&P thread had become more conducive to the expression of thought, rather than pure rabid pugnaciousness, since Jexs was banned.
402. concerned - 4/20/2002 12:57:29 AM
Gee, I was just thinking of poor little Jexster, deprived of his right to post, also. Thought I'd fill in for him a little with this funny from arabnews.com:
403. RustlerPike - 4/20/2002 2:55:33 AM
Suddenly the Arabs are great believers in Camp David.
God, I'm glad we get to be the better armed party in this - the second round of the global war that began 63 years ago.
404. CalGal - 4/21/2002 12:36:02 AM
Hey, CNN talked about the water issue.
Water fight intensifies Mideast conflict
I think part of the issue is not only is water scarce in this region, but there is inequitable access and use of it. Israeli settlers on the West Bank are using in the order of 4 times more water per person than Palestinians on the West Bank. And some Palestinian families don't even have access to enough water to meet even fairly basic household water needs. While some of the Israeli settlements are much more generously supplied, they might have swimming pools and green lawns. They are living in such close proximity to each other and this access to water is so inequitable, it really does, I think, fuel some of the tensions between them on the West Bank.
405. concerned - 4/21/2002 1:41:41 AM
Islamic Philippine Terrorists Feel U.S. Presence
I'm waiting for jexster or 'thoughtful' to try to twist this into some sort of malfeasance by the Bush Administration.
406. concerned - 4/21/2002 2:16:30 AM
India to Help Build Afghan Police Force
This intriguing, but incomplete news item does not describe how Russia got India a role in the Afghan police force. This will probably do nothing to defuse the tensions between India and Pakistan, not that that should have any effect on India's qualifications to participate.
407. Andonly - 4/21/2002 12:48:58 PM
Bombs Kill at Least 14 in Philippines
By PAUL ALEXANDER
.c The Associated Press
MANILA, Philippines (April 21) - A bomb killed at least 14 people outside a busy department store in the southern Philippines on Sunday, an hour after a man called in a warning in the name of a Muslim extremist group, officials said.
Two other bombs went off in quick succession near a radio station and a bus terminal in General Santos, a largely Christian city of 800,000 people in a region where Muslim fundamentalists have been seeking an independent homeland. The series of blasts wounded at least 45 people. The dead included four children.
A Radio Mindanao Network office in nearby Koronadal said it received a call an hour before the first blast from a man who had earlier called to complain about police boasts that the city was safe from terrorists. The man asked if the station wanted to cover bombings later that day.
Station manager Elmer Ubaldo said he decided not to air the warning because he did not want to cause panic, but a warning also circulated via cell phone text message that 18 bombs had been planted around the city that would start exploding after lunchtime.
The caller identified himself as Abu Muslim al-Ghazie and said he represented al Harakatul al-Islamiyah, the formal name for the brutal Abu Sayyaf group. Other spokesmen for the group said they had no knowledge of Abu Sayyaf involvement. Police Chief George Aquisap blamed unspecified terrorists.
408. Andonly - 4/21/2002 12:49:22 PM
The Abu Sayyaf, believed to have ties to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network, and the fundamentalist Moro Islamic Liberation Front have been blamed for setting off bombs in General Santos in the past.
The city is about 130 miles from Basilan island, where the Abu Sayyaf has been holding American missionaries Martin and Gracia Burnham and Filipino nurse Ediborha Yap for nearly 11 months. About 160 U.S. Special Forces troops are on the island to train Filipino troops assigned to crush the Abu Sayyaf.
The first bomb exploded in a three-wheel motorcycle taxi parked in a line about 30 feet in front of the Gensan Fitmart department store in General Santos' business district.
The blast shattered the store's glass panels. Blood was spattered around the parking area. Most of the casualties appeared to be taxi drivers, shoppers and bystanders.
The second bomb went off 34 minutes later near a radio station, followed several minutes afterward by the bus terminal blast, wounding several people, the city's disaster operations center said.
409. Andonly - 4/21/2002 12:49:36 PM
Bartolome Baluyot, police chief for the central Mindanao region, said two unexploded bombs were discovered under a truck parked in front of the store and were being detonated by the police bomb squad.
The injured were rushed to hospitals and clinics in the city, a little over 600 miles southeast of Manila. Most businesses closed, and checkpoints were set up on major roads as part of a security clampdown.
On Thursday, an Indonesian man believed to be a key leader of the Jemaah Islamiyah, a Southeast Asian-based group with suspected links to al-Qaida, pleaded guilty in General Santos to explosives possession.
Fathur Rohman Al-Ghozi was sentenced to 12 years in prison. He told police he had planned a series of bombings that killed 22 people in Manila on Dec. 30, 2000, and in January, he led police to a buried cache of more than a ton of TNT, detonating cords and M-16 rifles in General Santos.
The U.S. State Department renewed an appeal Thursday to Americans to exercise caution while in the Philippines.
In March, several bombs without triggering devices were discovered in Manila. A rebel group claimed responsibility and has threatened to plant more bombs.
410. Andonly - 4/21/2002 12:50:10 PM
End
411. CalGal - 4/21/2002 2:10:48 PM
That's rather scary. There hasn't been much television coverage of the Philippines, and not more than an article every so often in the Times and the Post.
Colin Powell's Humiliation
For America it has been a disaster. Since September 11 we have wanted to push the Arab world on two fronts: first on internal political reform and second on Iraq. But with tensions sky-high, these issues have been drowned out completely. Now the only conversation we will have with the Arabs is the one they always prefer to have—about Israel and Palestine. The big winners from Israel’s offensive are Iraq and the political extremists of the Middle East. Reform is on the retreat. The head of al-Azhar, the chief Islamic center in Cairo, had condemned suicide bombing in the wake of September 11. Last week he changed his mind. Martin Indyk, former ambassador to Israel, says, “In this climate the notion that we could get even Kuwait and Turkey to agree to an American intervention in Iraq is farcical.”
However we get out of this mess, one thing is clear. The president cannot pursue an effective policy without an undisputed foreign-policy spokesman. If he will not back his secretary of State out of conviction, he should do so out of calculation—or else replace him. For now he is following in the footsteps of another Southern governor with little foreign-policy experience who allowed his advisers to battle perpetually for control of foreign policy. Do we really want to go back to the Carter years?
412. ronski - 4/21/2002 2:22:21 PM
A reasonable answer to that question might be yes.
Carter's few successes included ending the state of war between Israel and Egypt.
413. CalGal - 4/21/2002 2:28:44 PM
Hey, the bombing just did make the news.
Ronski--In the scheme of things, which mattered more to Americans, peace between Israel and Egypt or the Iranian hostages?
414. ronski - 4/21/2002 2:29:59 PM
Clearly, the hostages.
415. Julius Caesar - 4/21/2002 2:59:34 PM
Powell's humiliation is really no more than the limits of diplomacy. Diplomacy must be fluid. As such, State is often seen as the weak, inconsistent sister.
One of the myths of the Gulf War, for example, was the coalition, as if the creation of same was some great diplomatic triumph in the face of a marauding Saddam.
If we unilaterally depose Saddam without Arab support, so be it. It will not be due to a failure of Powell, or State. The rubber may have simply hit the road with the Arab world, and Turkey and Kuwait may not agree as to American policy towards Iraq. So be it. Given the circumstances in Israel, Arab unease is to be expected.
Regardless, we should act as is in our interests, and let them choose where they would like to go.
I recommend two recent articles on Iraq. Mark Bowden (Black Hawk Down) in this month's Atlantic Monthly and this month's Vanity Fair piece on Iraq's weapons programs.
416. CalGal - 4/21/2002 3:06:03 PM
If we unilaterally depose Saddam without Arab support, so be it.
I have no objection to this. But Bush's administration looked extremely ineffectual. If he wants to listen to the hawks, great. Dump Powell and quit pretending to listen to him, only to cut his throat halfway through.
417. Julius Caesar - 4/21/2002 3:11:19 PM
If the administration cares about looks, then your statement is unassailable. The conservatives want Powell's head, but they generally want the head of every diplomat, because diplomats don't really warm to their great war mentality.
418. CalGal - 4/21/2002 3:16:53 PM
The conservatives want Powell's head, but they generally want the head of every diplomat, because diplomats don't really warm to their great war mentality.
Why send Powell over at all, then? If Bush wanted him to succeed, he had other options. If he didn't want Powell to succeed, then presumably he sent over Powell because everyone was demanding that he do so--which suggests that this administration does care about looks, ergo my statement is unassailable.
419. Julius Caesar - 4/21/2002 3:19:14 PM
For cover, for options, for time, in concert with the wishes of the Israeli government, in compromise with same, or a billion other reasons. The concept of "success" is decidedly more nuanced than making your statement unassailable.
Adios.
420. CalGal - 4/21/2002 3:25:10 PM
For cover, for options, for time, in concert with the wishes of the Israeli government, in compromise with same, or a billion other reasons
All of which means a concern with how they look, which you deny that they have.
I think they care very much about how they look, which is entirely acceptable--unlike you, I think it's a reasonable concern on occasion, provided it isn't over done.
Powell might not have succeeded in any event. But I'm pretty sure Bush had no intention of making us look ineffectual--whether he's concerned about all appearances or not. Unless you can provide cites demonstrating that he fully intended that Israel wouldn't heed our request.
421. wonkers2 - 4/21/2002 5:36:48 PM
Powell has about as much chance as the personnel manager in a law firm.
422. CalGal - 4/22/2002 1:12:43 PM
Philippine Police Arrest Two Muslim Separatists After Bombing
Baluyot said interrogation of the two suspects also revealed that six or seven other local Muslims trained with them in Malaysia and police were searching for them in other Philippine cities, including Manila.
More arrests were expected ``within hours or days,'' he said.
Baluyot said police would investigate possible links with Jemaah Islamiah, a regional militant group which is also alleged to have links with al Qaeda, prime suspects in the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington.
Malaysia has arrested 62 suspected militants in a crackdown that began before the September 11 attacks, accusing them of belonging to a regional network bent on creating a conservative Muslim state.
423. concerned - 4/22/2002 6:04:23 PM
From 'De Volkskrant' (sorry about cut & paste of bad Dutch translation):
Wave of antisemitism in EU-countries
The conflict in the Middle East is no longer confined in the region, but is manifesting in an increasing way in the streets of European cities. Notebly in France en Belgium a wave of antisemitism is flooding the cities. But also in other European countries, like Germany and the Netherlands, report a strong increase of antisemetic incidents.
After the attacks on Spetember 11 in New York (and Washington) there was a virtual wave of islamofobic, now it are mostly synagogues, kosjer shops, Jewish cemetaries and Jewish citicens who are targeted. In France the first two weeks in April there were 360 antisemetic incidents reported, a French antiracism organization reports. Most suspects are young and originate from North Africa.
In Belgium three Jewish buildings were set on fire in a short period. Jews in the street are repeatedly are called 'Hitler'. In Berlin two American othodox Jews were beaten up, an Jewish memorial was defaced with swastikas. In the Netherlands a pro-Palestina-deomstration in Amsterdam erupted in riots and antiracism organizations report a strong increase of antisemitist incidents. The bureau in Amsterdam registered in the three months half the number of incidents that usualy are reported in a whole year.
R. Eyssens of Meldpunt Discriminatie (Reportcenter Discrimination): "After the WTC-attacks we recieved ten reports of antisemitism, and three of those were related to the intifada. During the last four months this number was 55 and 25 of them were intifada related."
424. concerned - 4/22/2002 6:04:40 PM
That the emotions of the conflict in the Middle East also are evident in Europe is not strange, says racism-experts. Becuase of the immigration of certain people inevitable the conflicts that happen outside of Europe are imported. When PPK (Kurdish terrorist group)-leader Ocalan was arrested, the tensions between the Turks and the Kurds rised. The Molukkans also protested when the battle between muslims and Christians heated up in Indonesia. In England there are frequent clashes between Indian and Pakistani people.
'Migration causes people to enter that indentify strongly with events that occure in their homeland', says P. Rodrigues, researcher at the Anne Frankfoundation. But the way these conflicts get out of hand tell something about the politics and atmosphere in the country, he concludes. That is why France is delivering more critique at the adress of Israel than the Netherlands and is less determined to counter antisemitism.
Rodriques: 'Le Pen in France and the Vlaams Blok en Belgium created such an enviroment for a long tide to allow such feelings. Those feeling are openly displayed. That could happen in this country with Fortuyn too." The parties in power also started to make such hard statements. PvdA (Dutch socialists) member Rob Oudkerk was caught speaking about 'kut-Marokaantjes' (female genitals-Moroccans), minister Van Boxtel spoke about 'quat-chewing Somalian scoundrals'.
When the muslims are feeling less accepted, they will side with the Palestinians, the weak party, more and more. This according to L. Hamidi of the National bureau for countering racial discrimination. She says that the feelings that arouse on September 11 also play a role. "Then muslims were confronted with the feeling they collectively were to blame for the attacks." She sees that the muslimyouths are imitating the intifada style: throwing rocks and burning flags.
425. concerned - 4/22/2002 6:06:39 PM
The Dutch Iranian A. Elliean, criminal code and international law expert, fears that the riots are only the top of the iceberg. He says that the influence of 'political islam' is still underestimated in Europe. "Mosques and islamic foundations spread a political message that also is noticible in Arabic countries: the conflict in the Middle East is being fought with American weapons and European money. That message is also brought by Al Jazeera and is being spread to the growing muslimcommunity in Europe by their satelite-dishes. This brings a strong anti-American feeling and hatered of Jews with it."
Bolkenstein fears more riots will break out between Jews and muslims
De Volkskrant, April 22
European Commissionar Frits Bolkenstein fears that the incidents between Dutch Jews and immigrant youths will happen more frequently. He recons that within a few decades the majority of the population in the big cities are made up of immigrants. "They are not nessesary in the majority anti-Jewish, but I fear that it will contribute to it."
426. concerned - 4/22/2002 6:07:01 PM
Bolkenstein commented Sunday in the TV-program 'Buitenhof' about the incidents that occured in Amsterdam during a pro-Palestinian-demonstration. A small group of protesters attacked Jewish people. Bolkenstein refered to this as 'terrible'.
On the same program imam A. Haselhoef reacted to his comments. According to Haselhoef is it not really the case of antisemitism, but rather the case of 'anti-Israel feelings'. He said to somehow understand this feeling, when seeing the way the Israelis went into Jenin. What is happening with the Palestinians is the same as what happened to the Jews in WWII. He also said he could understand that the protesters in Amsterdam carried sign displaying swastikas. Those signs where not aimed at the Jews in the Netherlands, but are a symbol of 'the feeling of solidarity with the Palestinians.
360 anti-Semitic incidents in the first two weeks of April alone in a country with a sixth the population of the US is an amazingly high number. I don't believe there are many more than, if even that many such incidents in the entire US per year.
427. CalGal - 4/22/2002 8:12:24 PM
Where'd you find that piece? What kind of paper is "'De Volkskrant'"?
I'm not questioning it; it's an interesting article. Just wondering about the source, for future reference.
428. CalGal - 4/22/2002 8:17:49 PM
Moussaoui Asks Judge to Fire His Court-Appointed Lawyers
Moussaoui's announcement completely disrupted what was to have been a short and routine hearing to consider defense complaints about the way he has been held at the Alexandria jail. His lawyer had just started talking, when Moussaoui raised his hand, one finger to the sky.
When the judge called on him, he announced "They are not anymore my lawyers" and, when she gave him permission to continue, he began reading from a lengthy letter that he had composed. His heavily accented English is quite good and he has a French masters degree.
Moussaoui's request shocked the crowded courtroom, catching the prosecution by surprise. Brinkema told Moussaoui she respected his constitutional right to represent himself but would not make a final decision until a psychiatrist examined him for mental health problems.
"From what I have seen in court today, you appear to know and understand what you are doing. You are very bright . . . unless the doctor comes up with something, I will find this is a knowing and voluntary waiver" of the right to counsel, the judge said. She announced that she would keep Frank Dunham and the rest of the defense team on the case as "standby counsel," available to Moussaoui for consultation and for legal research and investigation.
429. CalGal - 4/22/2002 8:19:30 PM
Boy, this is going to make the ratings go bonkers.
430. Rama - 4/22/2002 8:36:47 PM
De Volkskrant is the newspaper that is read by most Dutch students. This morning newspaper has an image of quality. Its political position is a bit progressive. Besides reporting about the news, it also pays a lot of attention to science, academical education and culture.
431. CalGal - 4/22/2002 8:39:29 PM
Hey, thanks.
432. CalGal - 4/23/2002 3:50:43 PM
More Than 100 [DC] Area Airport Workers Arrested
Those arrested included catering workers, contract construction workers and baggage handlers, authorities said. Many are accused of lying about criminal convictions that included gun, drug, sex and assault charges, law enforcement sources said.
Ten people had outstanding warrants for their arrests.
Gosh, we only had 20 in the Bay Area.
433. robertjayb - 4/23/2002 5:49:57 PM
Germans bust al-Qaida terror cell...(AP)
B E R L I N, April 23 — Germany claimed Tuesday it crushed a terror cell led by a London-based cleric linked to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network, arresting 11 suspected Islamic militants in raids throughout the country.
434. CalGal - 4/23/2002 9:42:58 PM
'Slave of Allah' Wounds Justice
A bit of hysteria in the title, but I think he's generally correct. The trial of Zacarias Moussaoui is going to be ugly.
435. AytchMan - 4/23/2002 11:58:07 PM
cal--
I don't think it will be ugly. The Moose will rant and rave, of course. But the more extreme he gets, the less effect he'll have. The only way he can score big points is if he argues rationally, the way Hitler did (more or less) at his Beer Hall trial in 1923. He made the prosecutors (and the Republic) look very foolish and paved the way for his comeback.
I don't think Moose has it in him. We'll see.
436. CalGal - 4/24/2002 12:48:45 AM
I'm not thinking he'll be effective. I'm thinking it will be a nightmare. If he's so disruptive that the judge does what is normally done--put him in a separate room--there will be outrage. And so on.
I don't expect it to make any difference in the outcome, but it will be hideous.
437. Rama - 4/24/2002 9:50:36 AM
I don't expect it to make any difference in the outcome, but it will be hideous.
How could that possibly happen? Jonesatlaw and wonkers both assured me that the civilian courts would have no difficulty with Al Qaeda operatives.
438. robertjayb - 4/24/2002 11:19:08 AM
Spanish nab al-Qaida suspect...
MADRID, Spain (AP) --Spanish police on Wednesday arrested a Syrian-born man authorities say was crucial to helping the al-Qaida terrorist network finance operations in several countries. It was the third suspected al-Qaida member arrested in Spain in the last 10 days.
Interior Minister Mariano Rajoy told reporters that Ghasoub al-Abrash al-Ghalyoun was detained early Wednesday but he didn't give details or say exactly where he was arrested.
On Tuesday, police in Madrid arrested another Syrian-born Spaniard, Muhammed Galeb Kalaje Zouaydi. He was described as a leading figure in financing terrorist operations of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network in various countries including the United States.
Rajoy said al-Ghalyoun and another man, Bassan Dalati Satut, ``made up a network of businesses that devoted part of their profits to al-Qaida.'' Satut was arrested in Spain in November.
439. wonkers2 - 4/24/2002 11:30:55 AM
Rama, Just be patient! He'll get what he's got coming to him.
440. wonkers2 - 4/24/2002 11:38:33 AM
Did you notice how well international cooperation is paying off, eg, Germany, Spain?
441. Rama - 4/24/2002 12:22:38 PM
Rama, Just be patient!
Hey, I haven't expressed any impatience.
He'll get what he's got coming to him.
This is always true, for everyone.
Did you notice how well international cooperation is paying off, eg, Germany, Spain?
But I thought you said the actions of Bush, Ashcroft, et al, would de-rail international cooperation?
442. Wombat - 4/24/2002 12:29:42 PM
Just don't count on them being extradited to the US anytime soon.
443. CalGal - 4/24/2002 12:37:12 PM
Rama,
I think support for military tribunals will skyrocket if he gets to turn this into a soap opera.
444. Rama - 4/24/2002 12:38:19 PM
Just don't count on them being extradited to the US anytime soon.
Why would we want more Al Queda operatives in the US?
445. Wombat - 4/24/2002 12:42:30 PM
So we can give them the justice they deserve, instead of the paltry few years that they'll get in Europe. Also so that our intel. types can have a clear run at them.
446. Rama - 4/24/2002 12:48:46 PM
So we can give them the justice they deserve, instead of the paltry few years that they'll get in Europe.
Sorry, I just don't believe that the US sense of justice is so much more accurate than that of the Europeans.
Also so that our intel. types can have a clear run at them.
That isn't how that works.
447. zojak quafeth - 4/24/2002 3:11:59 PM
More Than 100 [DC] Area Airport Workers Arrested
.....
Gosh, we only had 20 in the Bay Area.
How many airports in the Bay area Cal. In the DC area there are 3. I'm wondering if per capita the numbers are not so off?
448. CalGal - 4/24/2002 3:15:51 PM
We have three airports--SFO, SJC, and OAK. Don't know per capita, but San Francisco has about 750,000, San Jose about 775, and Oakland between 500-600,000. That's not including the many suburbs.
DC may have busier airports.
449. robertjayb - 4/24/2002 6:14:52 PM
Let your spouse do the shopping...
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The FBI quietly warned its agents nationwide of unconfirmed information from a captured senior al-Qaida official that terrorists may be planning attacks against supermarkets or shopping centers, law enforcement officials said Wednesday.
The warning, sent Tuesday to all FBI field offices and relayed to some state and local police, cautioned that the information was unsubstantiated and did not include specific information about possible targets, timing, numbers of people involved or any particular method of attack.
450. CalGal - 4/24/2002 6:16:39 PM
Ewwww.
Great Mall, watch out.
451. Raskolnikov - 4/24/2002 6:23:02 PM
Hey, you aren't the one who lives close to the Mall of America.
452. CalGal - 4/24/2002 6:25:29 PM
That's the one I meant; isn't it called Great Mall? But yeah, be careful. The only malls around me are suburban money pits; nothing symbolic.
453. Raskolnikov - 4/24/2002 6:33:52 PM
Megamall. I rarely go there, so I have little to personally be concerned about (they do have a couple nice THX movie screens, but there are closer ones that I usually go to, with stadium seating - I think the last film I saw there was X-Men). They are well aware of their status as a symbol of American consumerism. I met one of their facilities managers last month, and he told me of some of the precautions they have taken since 9/11, such as putting up huge cement tree planters to stop a truck from driving inside. But I don't think you can ever make a huge mall completely secure.
Besides, in whitebread Minnesota, Islamic terrorists will stick out like sore thumbs. Remember that Moussauousisousiuisi was the only 9/11 hijacker who was caught in advance, for suspicious behavior at a flight school in a Twin Cities suburb.
454. CalGal - 4/24/2002 6:37:36 PM
Ha, that's true. Are there any other symbol malls? Crystal City, just because of its proximity to DC, maybe.
455. Rama - 4/24/2002 7:11:34 PM
Are there any other symbol malls?
I am inclined to think the "captured senior al-Qaida official" is yanking their chains.
456. robertjayb - 4/24/2002 7:19:27 PM
Probably.
And they, in turn, are yanking ours.
457. Rama - 4/24/2002 7:31:25 PM
And they, in turn, are yanking ours.
Yours, maybe. My chain remains unyanked.
It is yankless.
It is in a condition of yank virginity.
458. CalGal - 4/24/2002 7:37:07 PM
Yankee virgins are a rarity. Surprising, really, when you consider our Puritan beginnings.
459. Rama - 4/24/2002 7:40:32 PM
Rare and oh so special!
460. Andonly - 4/24/2002 9:35:01 PM
"Carter's few successes included ending the state of war between Israel and Egypt."
???
What did Carter have to do with it?
461. OhioSTOPAS - 4/24/2002 9:59:01 PM
Carter hosted the 1978 meeting at Camp David between Sadat and Begin.
462. wonkers2 - 4/24/2002 11:11:51 PM
Rama, Well, we haven't had any military trials yet. And the guidelines they finally adopted are quite a bit better than what they started out with.
The title of this thread, "Fighting Terrorism" may well not be the best because it implies incorrectly that terrorism can be stopped by fighting. International cooperation will in the long run be the most important element in dealing with international terrorism, not military adventurism as in attacking Iraq or wholesale trials by military tribunal. These actions aren't necessary and would be counter-productive because they would jeopardize the cooperation that is so essential.
463. joezan - 4/24/2002 11:15:30 PM
"International cooperation" = lily-livered appeasement in this case, wonk.
Don't hold your breath.
464. wonkers2 - 4/24/2002 11:17:27 PM
Sharon's big mistake is thinking he can repress terrorism by military action while perpetuating and increasing the injustices felt by the Palestinians.
465. joezan - 4/24/2002 11:18:46 PM
Sharon can't help what the Pals "feel", wonk.
466. wonkers2 - 4/24/2002 11:40:57 PM
Why would you say that? How would you feel to have his fat ass sitting on your face?!
467. wonkers2 - 4/24/2002 11:41:54 PM
Or RustlerPike's hairy ass?
468. wonkers2 - 4/24/2002 11:50:43 PM
Cap'n Dirty sez, "Andonly's shapely little tush wouldn't be so bad!"
469. Rama - 4/24/2002 11:59:55 PM
Rama, Well, we haven't had any military trials yet. And the guidelines they finally adopted are quite a bit better than what they started out with.
Nonsense. The guidelines are just what anybody with any sense thought they would be, rather than the rabid fantasies you were spinning.
The title of this thread, "Fighting Terrorism" may well not be the best because it implies incorrectly that terrorism can be stopped by fighting.
As a matter of historical fact, terrorism has been stopped by fighting on several occations by fighting.
International cooperation will in the long run be the most important element in dealing with international terrorism, not military adventurism as in attacking Iraq or wholesale trials by military tribunal.
Of course. You are arguing against a strawman. But international cooperation alone will not be sufficient.
470. ronski - 4/25/2002 5:12:07 PM
Buy the Stuff, Already!
471. Rama - 4/25/2002 6:01:02 PM
Indeed, there seems very little downside to this approach.
472. CalGal - 4/25/2002 10:27:33 PM
British Judge Denies Extradition in Sept. 11 Probe
U.S. law enforcement officials have conceded privately that Raissi, once suspected of being a key associate of the Sept. 11 hijackers, is no longer considered a terrorist or accomplice to terrorism.
Nice to see the justice system work, for a change. But it's indication that Ashcroft & Co might want to be a bit more careful.
473. CalGal - 4/25/2002 10:28:17 PM
Just read that link. Why on earth wouldn't we buy it?
474. Rama - 4/25/2002 11:36:54 PM
Nice to see the justice system work, for a change. But it's indication that Ashcroft & Co might want to be a bit more careful.
While they should strive for perfection, it isn't really reasonable to expect it.
475. CalGal - 4/25/2002 11:40:53 PM
I don't expect perfection. I do expect that more than knee surgery should be used as evidence of suspected terrorism.
476. Rama - 4/26/2002 10:08:22 AM
I don't expect perfection. I do expect that more than knee surgery should be used as evidence of suspected terrorism.
You don't have any reason to believe that there isn't more evidence. Courts are required to assume people are innocent until proven quilty. For everybody else, that's just silly.
Suppose, for example, that Raissi had been known for years to be affiliated with Iraqi intelligence. The attack on September 11 occurs, and all of the investigative organizations go into overdrive. The Intel community has Raissi on a list of folks to be concerned about, and look here: he is involved in pilot training! So the week after the towers fell, the US asks the UK if we can talk to this guy. You don't tell everybody in the world what your Intel people know. And if further investigation turns out to indicate that this particular bad guy isn't involved in this particular type of bad acting, it isn't the end of the world.
Of course, you could wait to accomplish the further investigation before you ask for extradition. And if it then turns out he was involved this type of bad acting, but has moved to parts unknown while you were investigating, some of the same people will complain that you weren't perfect.
477. CalGal - 4/26/2002 10:12:55 AM
Rama, if they aren't saying all that they know, then the system isn't working. But the report says that they were saying all that they knew, and that the guy had no terrorist connections.
478. Rama - 4/26/2002 10:26:37 AM
Rama, if they aren't saying all that they know, then the system isn't working.
That simply isn't true. There is no reason for them to say everything they know. And there is plenty of reason for them not to say everything they know.
But the report says that they were saying all that they knew, and that the guy had no terrorist connections.
I wasn't saying the guy had terrorist connections. I'm saying that the guy may very well be a bad actor, and there may be a lot more information available than was disclosed, and that it was therefore reasonable to start extradition proceedings in order to make sure he didn't disappear while that information was followed up.
479. CalGal - 4/26/2002 10:41:10 AM
There is no reason for them to say everything they know.
If American officials are "conceding privately" that the guy isn't a terrorist, then I'm pretty sure they would be mentioning if he was a "bad actor". I suspect that if he were a bad actor, they'd be letting the press know if only to save face.
I'm not bound and determined to fault the US. If suspicion was indeed reasonable, they could at least indicate as much "privately". I feel it likely that they would, therefore I find it likely that they made a bad call on this guy. It's not damning. I just hope they aren't doing wide scoops and figuring they'll find proof later.
480. CalGal - 4/26/2002 12:10:51 PM
Young Egyptians Hearing Call of 'Martyrdom'
The specter is one that has long frightened officials in both Israel and the Arab countries that surround it — of promising young Arabs, frustrated by a lack of opportunity at home and infuriated by Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, joining the fight in a way they have not done since 1948.
It is also a prospect that has suddenly become very real.
Egyptian officials have confirmed that half a dozen young men and women, including Mr. Hemeida, have been stopped trying to sneak into Israel since last week, apparently to carry out attacks. One Egyptian security official said that since last month, the security forces have been arresting several such young people each day.
That's really incomprehensible. Granted, they have little to do, and it's horrible that the Egyptian economy educates its youths and then gives them no opportunity. But "Okay, I'm going to go get myself killed by the Israelis" as a response?
And spookier still:
When two American reporters arrived at the Hemeida family's mud-brick home last Friday, shortly after Milad Hemeida's burial, his relatives could barely restrain one another.
"You are the ones who killed him!" one of Mr. Hemeida's uncles shouted bitterly, as dozens of men in cotton robes poured from a richly carpeted funeral tent. "Those Israeli bullets are paid for by the United States!"
Your nephew goes to Israel and tells soldiers he is a suicide bomber, and you blame the US for his death.
Wow.
481. Rama - 4/26/2002 12:59:12 PM
If American officials are "conceding privately" that the guy isn't a terrorist, then I'm pretty sure they would be mentioning if he was a
"bad actor".
I can understand how you might feel that way, but I think you are mistaken.
I suspect that if he were a bad actor, they'd be letting the press know if only to save face.
While saving face is a common motive for government types, it is by far not the only motive they have.
I just hope they aren't doing wide scoops and figuring they'll find proof later.
I agree this is a legitimate concern. I just don't think this case is a clear example of that sort of problem.
482. CalGal - 4/26/2002 1:11:41 PM
American kowtowing to "moderate" Arabs may embolden bin Laden.
Interesting piece by Bernard Lewis, suggesting (as others have done) that Osama might decide that the US is weakening again. He gets one thing wrong, though:
The same message appears in several other statements--that Americans had become soft and pampered, unable or unwilling to stand up and fight. It was a lesson bin Laden extracted from our responses to previous attacks: He expected more of the same. There would be fierce words and perhaps the U.S. would launch a missile or two to some remote places, but there would be little else in terms of retaliation.
It was a natural error. Nothing in his background or his experience would enable him to understand that a major policy change could result from an election.
That puts all the blames on the Dems, even though several of the incidents occurred on Republican watch. But more to the point, Dem or Republican, we would have responded to 9/11 with war.
483. Andonly - 4/26/2002 1:14:40 PM
Ohio: "Carter hosted the 1978 meeting at Camp David between Sadat and Begin."
The peace arrangements between Israel and Egypt were worked out in advance by Begin and Sadat in 1977, and presented to the Carter admin as a fait accompli that had in fact been facilitated (but not mediated) in secret by Roumania and, I think, Spain long before the US had any idea there was a peace deal in the works.
As I undertand it, Carter just put the US's imprimatur on it at Camp David. He didn't do anything like what Clinton attempted.
484. Andonly - 4/26/2002 1:21:58 PM
"That puts all the blames on the Dems, even though several of the incidents occurred on Republican watch."
I don't think Lewis' aim is to specify that the changed policy was a result of Republicans gaining control of the White House. He's simply saying that bin Laden did not expect that a change in admin could produce a change in policies carried out previously under both Dems and Reps.
IOW, in OBL's experience, the ruling party had never much mattered before, so it shouldn't have now.
485. CalGal - 4/26/2002 1:24:04 PM
He's simply saying that bin Laden did not expect that a change in admin could produce a change in policies carried out previously under both Dems and Reps.
But doesn't that imply that our response to 9/11 was a result of changed administrations?
486. Rama - 4/26/2002 1:56:10 PM
But doesn't that imply that our response to 9/11 was a result of changed administrations?
It doesn't strike me that way. Perhaps it is a matter of context.
487. CalGal - 4/26/2002 1:58:58 PM
Maybe. That's how it struck me, and I thought it was odd--because I don't see how politics would seriously have affected our response to 9/11. Terrorist attacks short of that, certainly.
488. OhioSTOPAS - 4/26/2002 2:25:13 PM
Andonly Message # 483: What did Carter, Begin and Sadat do for two weeks at Camp David if the peace agreement was already completed?
489. Julius Caesar - 4/26/2002 2:33:27 PM
Badminton.
490. Property of Jesus - 4/26/2002 2:35:48 PM
They actually practiced their handshakes.
491. Julius Caesar - 4/26/2002 2:40:12 PM
There would have been a response no matter the president - Gore or Bush, but I think the prosecution of the effort would have been widely divergent.
I've also heard the moans of Joe Klein and Paul Begala (it is a shame I have to put them in the same sentence) that the right would have been at Gore to attack, attack, attack. They're correct, but raising the point is almost an implicit (and unwitting) suggestion that Gore would have been so malleable and fearful as to take into consideration their verve and thereafter, craft a hasty and ill-thought out strategy, for fear of suffering their wrath.
Which is in and of itself a dim evaluation.
Moreover, it is critical to at least point out that for better or worse, the crafters of strategy in a Gore administration would not be of the Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz stripe.
492. CalGal - 4/26/2002 2:46:09 PM
I agree with all that, JC. It might have changed our longterm response, but do you think that if Dems had been in power we wouldn't have attacked Afghanistan? I don't see it. I certainly don't think we'd have so many administration officials beating the Iraq drums, but I think Afghanistan would be the same.
More to the point, I think that regardless of whether we'd have done as much, we certainly would have responded. Bin Laden's mistake wasn't underestimating an administration change, it was in underestimating the American people's response.
493. wonkers2 - 4/26/2002 5:48:42 PM
The situation in Palestine isn't helping the "fight" against terrorism, Sharon's attempts to portray himself as an ally fighting on another front.
494. robertjayb - 4/26/2002 6:44:00 PM
Hang on, sonny--- daddy's coming!
WASHINGTON (AP) -- As he works to repair U.S.-Saudi relations, President Bush has called in some low-key but high-level help: his father.
Former President Bush linked up in Texas on Friday with Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, who had just finished two days of meetings with the younger Bush and his aides.
Abdullah and the former president spent 90 minutes together on a train from Houston to College Station, where Bush gave Abdullah a private tour of his presidential library. Later, the elder Bush was giving a library tour to another Arab leader, King Mohammed VI of Morocco, who met with Bush the son earlier this week.
495. Andonly - 4/27/2002 1:22:54 AM
"What did Carter, Begin and Sadat do for two weeks at Camp David if the peace agreement was already completed?"
Search me. I'm just relaying what I heard Bernard Lewis say on Charlie Rose.
The popular history that Carter negotiated a peace settlement between Egypt and Israel, Lewis said, was a myth, and the truth of the matter, as I relayed it, a well kept secret.
All this he elucidated by way of explaining why Clinton's effort to mediate a solution between Barak and Arafat failed while the Sadat-Begin arrangement succeeded: the latter negotiation was not mediated, while the former was. And as mediator, Clinton became the party with whom both sides opted to negotiate, thus avoiding each other.
496. OhioSTOPAS - 4/27/2002 7:00:35 AM
Lewis's characterization is news to me. Everything I've every read (admittedly, not very much) about the Camp David meeting states the conventional account, i.e. that President Carter initiated and mediated the meeting until final agreement was reached.
497. RustlerPike - 4/27/2002 7:33:00 AM
I haven't been following too closely, but I'll butt in: both things are true.
The basic idea - Sinai for peace - was worked out between Dayan and Egyptian general Tuhami, I believe, in secret meetings. But then there was a lot of haggling and niggling and - I imagine - external and internal pressure on both sides, and Carter provided the hosting skills that helped seal the deal.
But obviously, the basic will to make the peace had to be there between the Egyptians and Israelis, and the historical moment was right. If Carter was hosting Camp David 2, I imagine the results would have been the same, except maybe everyone would have had more peanuts and Billy C. would have provided some strippers.
498. RustlerPike - 4/27/2002 7:34:55 AM
(The results would have been the same as with Bill Clinton, that is).
(And when I said Billy C. I meant Carter, but it works OK both ways).
499. Julius Caesar - 4/27/2002 10:00:38 AM
Cal
but do you think that if Dems had been in power we wouldn't have attacked Afghanistan? I don't see it. I certainly don't think we'd have so many administration officials beating the Iraq drums, but I think Afghanistan would be the same.
I think you're probably correct, but with the team in place under Bush, we were definitely going to attack Afghanistan, depose the Taliban, and begin a multi-national offensive against al-Qaeda. For starters.
I think if you have a foreign policy team with players synonymous to the Albrights and Lakes and Bergers, yes, it is likely (though not assured) that we attack Afghanistan, but that's about it.
I agree we would have responded in some fashion, but that would have been the case if McGovern were the president.
500. CalGal - 4/27/2002 10:32:52 AM
I disagree that it was only likely. That said, I still think that Lewis' analysis is off. He begins by discussing bin Laden's confidence in the American cowardice--after all, we pulled out in Beirut, Somalia, gave up in Iraq, and so on. We didn't have the will to fight.
But those pull outs were in large part because there was no support in the public for American soldiers' deaths, due to the American perception that these fights weren't ours, and we wanted the fuck out. That is what changed, fundamentally. If the administration hadn't responded, whichever party, and we continued to suffer terrorist attacks, the administration would have been replaced until we had one that would fight. Because the real change occurred in the American people; bin Laden's assumption about us was the seriously flawed one.
501. Julius Caesar - 4/27/2002 10:47:27 AM
Support is created by making a case and backing it with political capital.
Adios.
502. CalGal - 4/27/2002 10:49:35 AM
Well, there's a non sequitur.
503. Cellar Door - 4/27/2002 1:10:29 PM
Gore Vidal
504. Rama - 4/27/2002 1:15:48 PM
Gore Vidal, published by the Guardian.
I'm sure the Church of Scientology has an opinion as well.
505. CalGal - 4/27/2002 11:04:43 PM
U.S. Blueprint to Topple Hussein Envisions Big Invasion Next Year
The Bush administration, in developing a potential approach for toppling President Saddam Hussein of Iraq, is concentrating its attention on a major air campaign and ground invasion, with initial estimates contemplating the use of 70,000 to 250,000 troops.
The administration is turning to that approach after concluding that a coup in Iraq would be unlikely to succeed and that a proxy battle using local forces there would be insufficient to bring a change in power.
But senior officials now acknowledge that any offensive would probably be delayed until early next year, allowing time to create the right military, economic and diplomatic conditions. These include avoiding summer combat in bulky chemical suits, preparing for a global oil price shock, and waiting until there is progress toward ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
506. wonkers2 - 4/27/2002 11:41:25 PM
Good to get the Big Iraq Attack plan on the table. Maybe it won't look so good in the light of day.
507. concerned - 4/28/2002 2:31:16 AM
More Islamic Peace, extra crispy style, from Indonesia
508. jexster - 4/28/2002 11:43:33 AM
The Mother of All Battles Begins With Leak Skirmish in NyT
509. Property of Jesus - 4/28/2002 11:48:42 AM
Welcome back, Jex.
The masses missed you.
510. TabouliJones - 4/28/2002 3:31:40 PM
Tonight 60 Minutes will be airing a segment that will reportedly paint Canada as a haven for terrorist operations. Should be interesting. If I get a chance to watch it, I will offer my two cents tomorrow.
511. ronski - 4/28/2002 10:59:10 PM
I would like to think there are no terrorist cells in the U.S., given that I cross two major bridges four days a week. But I fear there are such cells, and that they are here expressly to plan major attacks on the scale of 9/11, including radiological, biological or nuclear attacks.
512. CalGal - 4/28/2002 11:15:34 PM
Argh, I wish I'd read this a bit sooner. Just missed it. Hopefully 60 minutes does transcripts.
Ronski, if they are here, then we only have ourselves to blame. We didn't make a systematic search for them. Too busy worrying who we'd offend.
513. Andonly - 4/29/2002 12:08:34 AM
These include avoiding summer combat in bulky chemical suits, preparing for a global oil price shock, and waiting until there is progress toward ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Hmm. I see I should get busy on my Lights Out on Shabbos campaign. The sketchy outline:
As I see it, no Jew has any business financially supporting Arab oil regimes beyond what is absolutely necessary. (Nor, I suspect it will come to pass, should any patriotic American.)
We may not be able to dictate exactly where and how the US obtains its petroleum. (Most of the the options are problematic.) We can't pick righteous rulers for most of the Arabs, or hand them democracy on a plate.
But we can withdraw from business as usual. We can begin to exercise our flaccid collective muscle now, so that when the time comes, we'll be ready to act as one people.
Arabs' dependence on oil revenues in the mideast stifles the development of other industries and keeps economies within the control of secular or religious tyrants, many of whom would like to see the obliteration of the Jewish state, or else preside over radicalized populations which would like that even more. A number of these regimes are anti-American.
The US has no choice at the moment but to pretend that women in Saudi Arabia are not treated like dogs, and Saudis wealthy from our oil money don't buy arms for Palestinian terrorists or fund al Qaeda. We have to beg them to please not publish government-sponsored clerical opinions about the Jewish habit of drinking Palestinian blood. We sit and wonder what will happen next in Iran, while the mullahs deny their people the freedom they desire, and some part of the government aids terrorists who hate us. We even buy oil from Iraq.
514. Andonly - 4/29/2002 12:08:51 AM
For the time being we're locked into mideast oil, dependent as on a drug, even if it's only a (hefty) part of our national consumption. But our dependency fuels theirs, locking Arbas into a cycle of economic and political failure, corruption, shame and reaction. Why should our dollars perpetuate this any more than is absolutely necessary? We broke free to some extent in the seventies. Isn't it time to finish the job?
If you're a loyal American, a conservative, a liberal, a progressive, a Jew, a Muslim who refuses to be dictated to by anti-democratic extremists, a Christian, a conservationist, or you just want to do your small part to resist the power of the oil weapon...
Sell your gass-guzzling spute, or garage it, and drive cheap.
Conserve energy--all energy, as much as possible, from now on, all the time.
If you're able, invest in alternative energy resources (hybrid autos, solar and wind power) and conservation. Now's the time to spring for those new windows.
At sundown on Shabbat, or whenever your sabbath begins, turn off your power for at least one hour. (If you're an atheist, pick a time.)
Shut it all down, at the breaker box. Use candles. Keep the fridge closed. Walk, don't drive.
If you own a business, turn off whatever power you reasonably can for one hour, starting at 6:00 pm on Fridays. Or better yet, during the heat of the day this summer.
At least one hour. And pick a day each week during which you will not drive for any reason but an emergency or a very serious necessity.
Is all this too much for Americans to pull off? Is it too much for Jews?
515. Andonly - 4/29/2002 12:10:59 AM
"I would like to think there are no terrorist cells in the U.S., given that I cross two major bridges four days a week. But I fear there are such cells, and that they are here expressly to plan major attacks on the scale of 9/11, including radiological, biological or nuclear attacks."
The 60 Minutes piece asserts that there are fifty terrorist groups operating Canada (including the IRA) and there's scarcely any trouble crossing into the US.
516. CalGal - 4/29/2002 12:18:40 AM
Well, that's scary. Are they there legally, or no?
And, why don't American Jewish organizations propose some sort of boycott like that? Will it hurt the economy, or something?
517. Andonly - 4/29/2002 11:04:50 AM
"Will it hurt the economy, or something?"
I don't know. One would think not. In the summer months especially, I would expect a reduction in electricity usage for one hour once a week might help some. And if you assume, for example, that people who observed the driving boycott simply consolidated their travel so that instead of a trip to the mall on Saturday and a trip to the grocery store on Sunday they set off from home and went both places on one day, then there should be little negative impact on the economy. I doubt people are really going to shop less or work less or entertain themselves less; but with a little judicious planning it might be possible to do it with slightly less driving.
I don't think there's been an organized Jewish boycott of oil yet. But doesn't it seem as though this is an area where Jews ought to lead?
When people in the US are told that the sheikhs can't do X and the moderate regimes can't do Y because of pressure from the "Arab street," or we're shown images of angry Lebanese students rioting over the latest Israeli incursion into Pal camps, it makes an impression here. Americans naturally tend to believe power must answer to the people, even when power is despotic.
518. Andonly - 4/29/2002 11:05:08 AM
Only, that's not what everyone says: some say the powerful in Arab oil producing states are firmly in charge. Meanwhile, hasn't the American street something to say, too? It might not make much direct impression on Arab citizens if our streets got very, very quiet every seven days. But I wonder whether it might make an impression on those in charge if a sustained American lights-out-no-drive demonstration were to cause a little downtick on the oil meter.
Just a little one, to remind the world that Americans are savvy enough to identify their priorities, their masters, their enemies, and are disciplined enough to revolt if we're pushed too far.
I'd love to see a US president putting his palms in the air and shrugging the next time he had a five-hour meeting with Prince Abdullah. "Well," he'd tell him, "there's only so much I can do. The American street, you know..."
519. concerned - 4/29/2002 11:14:11 AM
Military blamed in Indonesia attack
This should call for an internal investigation by the Indonesian military, at the least, IMO. If it turns out Muslim whackjobs within the ranks are being given implicit or explicit permission to assault non-Muslims by their superiors, then there should be a top-to-bottom overhaul of Indonesia's armed forces.
520. CalGal - 4/29/2002 11:14:36 AM
But doesn't it seem as though this is an area where Jews ought to lead?
Yes, it is. But I would also expect a horrific backlash. One of the differences between the US and Arab countries is that their "street" is not united. CAIR would be out in force, denouncing the boycott, as would the same anti-globalization fuckwits currently supporting Palestine. Soon the debate would be over whether the boycott is fair, rather than how much we could achieve with it.
The Arab "street", of course, would announce yet another Jewish conspiracy to take over their oil.
521. Andonly - 4/29/2002 12:48:54 PM
"Yes, it is. But I would also expect a horrific backlash."
I've considered that. That's why the movement would have to be aimed broadly at numerous constituencies, each with its own rationale for supporting the boycott. But Jews should have a particularly strong and immediate reason for turning off the lights, and mobilization could occur through the synagogues. Observant Jews already avoid turning lights on or off on the Sabbath, or driving. Non-observant Jews could be encouraged ot do so on perfectly religious grounds. (It's funny, isn't it, how an old and seemingly pointless or excessive religious dictate suddenly has an obvious and very practical application to the solidarity of the Jewish people...)
522. Andonly - 4/29/2002 12:49:06 PM
The rationale for the boycott would have to be tailored to every interest group in American society to which it might appeal. In the same way union leaders and leftists have come together on certain global trade issues, the oil dependency issue has the potential to unify Americans across the political spectrum.
"CAIR would be out in force, denouncing the boycott, as would the same anti-globalization fuckwits currently supporting Palestine."
I think CAIR is fairly irelevent in the US, and discredited among many people anyway, post 9-11. They certainly would need to tread carefully in their criticisms of an anti-oil dependency movement, especially if Lights Out came calling directly on them for support. Don't CAIR's prominent members maintain that the US hypocritically supports repressive Arab regimes (as well as Israel) in exchange for the free flow of oil? What's more important, really, the US's support of Israel or the US's support of the rulers of millions more Arabs and Muslims, by whom the despots haven't done too well? Won't American Arabs pay just as much at the pump as everyone else if the "oil weapon" is used against us?
Let them put their SUVs where their mouths are, and if they object, let them say why with everyone watching.
523. CalGal - 4/29/2002 1:19:41 PM
I don't know that CAIR is as irrelevant as all that--they were sitting right next to Bush right after 9/11, weren't they? Or some other "discredited" Islamic lobbying group was. There is a segment of the Republican party focusing on Muslims as a demographic these days, and enough interest to keep media attention on it.
But just because I see a potential downside doesn't mean I don't think it's a good idea. Has there been no discussion of it within Jewish organizations? I've never seen it mentioned.
524. TabouliJones - 4/29/2002 2:00:43 PM
I missed the 60 Minutes segment suggesting that Canada is a haven for terrorists. Here is a piece from Friday' Globe and Mail summarizing and discussing the segment's point of view.
Globe and Mail -
Colin Freeze, April 26, 2002
Canada will once again be painted as a terrorist haven when the widely watched television news show 60 Minutes tells Americans this Sunday that their northern neighbour has serious problems in its immigration system.
The exposé is the latest headache for the federal government, which has been battling fears that terrorists are entering Canada and are poised to slip across the border to attack.
Since the Sept. 11 attacks, Ottawa has been working overtime to assuage such concerns. But much of this work threatens to be undone by two outspoken former civil servants from Canada.
The CBS show, which draws 16 million American viewers each week, relies on former spy-service official David Harris and former immigration czar James Bissett.
Both men complain of being Cassandras whose public warnings have long gone unheeded in Canada.
On 60 Minutes, Mr. Harris says there is a horde of terrorist groups in Canada -- including al-Qaeda -- and jokes that "Canada has everything for the discriminating terrorist."
Mr. Bissett, meanwhile, rips into the country's refugee system, which he has long regarded as a fundamentally flawed "charade" that has been defrauded by many asylum seekers, including terrorists.
On the show, Deputy Prime Minister John Manley says Canada's system is not fail-safe, but is improving. He points out that most Western nations have problems with terrorists lurking among them, including the United States.
In the days after Sept. 11, some U.S. reports said the hijackers crossed into the United States from Canada. [. . .]
525. TabouliJones - 4/29/2002 2:03:29 PM
[cont.]
But subsequent investigations determined all 19 of the men accused of being involved were in the United States legally at the time of the attacks.
Terrorists, however, do reside in Canada.
A number of terrorists or alleged terrorists have lived here, most prominently Ahmed Ressam, a refugee claimant and al-Qaeda operative who came close to bombing the Los Angeles airport before U.S. authorities caught and convicted him.
Even so, 60 Minutes isn't simply singing Blame Canada. In an ongoing series concerning terrorist threats, the news program recently ripped into the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service over terrorism concerns.
A spokeswoman for Mr. Manley acknowledged yesterday that 60 Minutes asks tough questions, but dismissed the immigration criticisms as old news. She said Canadian critics have long been beating the same drum. [. . .]
526. TabouliJones - 4/29/2002 2:04:36 PM
[cont.]
"I don't think it's entirely helpful when some of our strongest critics are Canadians," Jennifer Sloan said. "It's unfortunate that the media go back to the same old two or three guys."
Canadian Alliance defence critic Leon Benoit disagreed. "Don't blame the messenger," he said, citing inaction by the federal government. "Blame the people responsible."
If Canada gets a black eye on 60 Minutes, it's not necessarily a bad thing, Mr. Benoit said. "We have been hammering away at this for literally nine years. . . . Why the hell hasn't the government responded?"
Along with the Canadian Alliance, the two former civil servants have long faced governments unreceptive to their arguments. Having left their most prominent government posts more than a decade ago, the two men now frequently appear as pundits in news stories and opinion pages.
Since at least 1993, journalists have tapped Mr. Harris's expertise as a former chief of strategic planning for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.
Mr. Harris, who says he can't reveal exactly when or how long he was with CSIS, tells 60 Minutes that 50 terrorist groups -- including Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network -- are operating in Canada.
Recent CSIS reports have suggested the same thing. However, CSIS director Ward Elcock urges people to quote this number in context, saying that "few of those groups or individuals pose a threat of direct terrorist attack in Canada or, indeed, to our closest neighbour."
Mr. Elcock says that most groups here act to support terrorist causes abroad. [. ..]
527. TabouliJones - 4/29/2002 2:05:07 PM
[cont.]
Canada's multicultural makeup means the country has more terrorist groups than any other nation, "with perhaps the singular exception of the United States," he has said.
Mr. Bissett, meanwhile, was head of the Canadian Immigration Service from 1985 until 1990.
During that time he helped draft legislation that gave birth to the current refugee determination system, which he now decries as a system rarely used by bona fide refugees.
The problem, he says, is a last-minute and catastrophic watering-down of the law by the Progressive Conservative government of the day.
Mr. Bissett has been a tireless and often controversial critic since leaving the public service. On the program, he describes how Canada's refugee system has recently let in 2,500 immigrants from what he calls "terrorist-producing countries" such as Algeria, Pakistan and Afghanistan; "most of them," he says, "we don't know who the hell they are." [end]
528. robertjayb - 4/29/2002 2:27:01 PM
Sneaky damned Canadians. How did they get the substance of a U.S. TV program on Friday before it was aired on Sunday?
But from what I recall, the article posted by TabouliJones is a good recap of the broadcast. I was prepared to be surprised and wasn't. Seemed pretty thin stuff to me. Canada's immigration system is a mess. They lose people. The U.S. immigration system is a mess. They lose people.
529. CalGal - 4/29/2002 2:31:26 PM
I think the difference lies in who the Canadians let in, which is apparently far worse than ours--which is also a mess.
530. TabouliJones - 4/29/2002 2:46:34 PM
I am not sure how Canadian and American immigration figures compare with respect to the country of origin of most immigrants, co cannot comment as to whether Canada lets in a greater number or percentage of immigrants from terrorist hotspots than does the U.S.
I do know that, per capita, more immigrants enter Canada each year than most (if not all) Western countires. Post-9/11 it is obvious that this high figure of immigrants requires that appropriate attention should be given to ensuring that measures are in place to screen out potential terrorists.
At this point, there has been much talk, but little in the way of improvement.
531. robertjayb - 4/29/2002 2:51:36 PM
Yes, the program described an incredibly loose "refugee" admission process. One interviewee said a person could arrive, claim "refugee" status, and be out the door and free in a couple of hours with full entitlement to all of Canada's social bennies.
532. TabouliJones - 4/29/2002 3:02:13 PM
The "refugee" category has been the main source of abuse, and is the part of the system most in need of reform.
533. wonkers2 - 4/29/2002 9:07:21 PM
A key al quaida player was caught recently in Spain where he was running a construction company which he used to launder millions and send money to al quaida operatives an 9-10 countries around the world. Story in today's Wall Street Journal.
534. Indiana Jones - 4/29/2002 9:19:14 PM
Portrait of Saddam
And:
Interview with the author
535. wonkers2 - 4/29/2002 10:12:54 PM
Interesting. I remain unconvinced of the immediacy of danger from Iraq.
536. Indiana Jones - 4/29/2002 10:19:00 PM
How convinced were you, wonkers, of the immediacy of danger from Afghanistan on September 10, 2001?
537. Indiana Jones - 4/29/2002 10:23:16 PM
Politically, I think the administration is making a big mistake if they intend to put off for a year any serious attempt on Saddam. (They could also of course be making a big strategic mistake as well.)
Militarily and diplomatically, they may not have any choice, but I think the longer they wait the less able they will be to act without more cards turning up than are now visible.
538. CalGal - 4/29/2002 10:43:58 PM
Does anyone know why their plans were leaked? Was it deliberate?
539. arkymalarky - 4/29/2002 10:50:44 PM
Don't have time to dig it back up, but I was reading somewhere that the serious rift within the DOD and between the DOD and State Dept may be motivating the leaks.
540. CalGal - 4/29/2002 11:00:03 PM
Yes, there is a serious rift. But it is mindboggling that State would go so far as to leak such substantial DoD plans. And it seems to me it would have to come from pretty high up.
541. wonkers2 - 4/30/2002 12:17:20 AM
Truthfully, Afghanistan wasn't particularly on my radar screen. But Iraq ain't Afghanistan and Sadaam ain't Osama.
542. zojak quafeth - 4/30/2002 7:53:43 AM
I think the difference lies in who the Canadians let in, which is apparently far worse than ours--which is also a mess.
All I know about the issue is that when my parents emigrated from Greece in the 50s it was much easier to get into Canada than it was to get into the US. The route they took was Greece to Canada, then after a few years Canada to US.
543. Indiana Jones - 4/30/2002 9:01:52 AM
Iraq ain't Afghanistan and Sadaam ain't Osama.
Well, yes. In terms of danger I'd say Iraq qualifies as more dangerous than Afghanistan and Saddam as more dangerous than Bin Laden.
I think it's ironic that Clinton supporters claim he was hamstrung regarding any action in Afghanistan because Republicans would have jumped all over him if he'd tried to be decisive, yet they engage in the same posturing versus Iraq.
544. zojak quafeth - 4/30/2002 10:59:03 AM
I think it's ironic that...
I think:
1. it's politics as usual.
2. that it shows how quickly this country can lapse back into business as usual.
545. Indiana Jones - 4/30/2002 11:16:03 AM
One difference, zojak, is that Clinton was operating pre 9/11 whereas Bush is operating post 9/11. The Republicans would indeed likely have tried to make political hay had 9/11 occurred on Clinton's watch--that he hadn't been more decisive in dealing with Bin Laden. They would not, however, have tried to block American actions against him (Bin Laden). Nor would they have blocked an aggressive policy vis-a-vis Saddam and Iraq.
Further, the Republican "excuse" for inaction is somewhat of a fiction anyway, considering the aggressive foreign policy pursued during the Clinton era in other situations (Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo, to name three).
It is politics as usual in that success has many parents, whereas failure is an orphan. Despite those nasty Republicans, Clinton somehow kept thrusting himself into the lion's share of credit for the economy. Yet a colossal foreign policy debacle has to be shared.
546. zojak quafeth - 4/30/2002 11:20:00 AM
Clinton was operating pre 9/11 whereas Bush is operating post 9/11
Indy - I don't disagree with what you've said. I think that 9/11 SHOULD make a difference and that we shouln't lapse, but I repeat:
it shows how quickly this country can lapse back into business as usual.
547. Indiana Jones - 4/30/2002 11:45:39 AM
zojak: Yes, even an event like the destruction of the WTC can have only so much impact on overall trends. However, I think it obviously represents at least two trends itself: terrorist willingness to use any weapon that becomes available to achieve purely violent aims and the decreasing ability of any part of the globe to be safe from technologically enhanced madmen.
We ignore at our peril the first seismic blips of this wave.
548. concerned - 4/30/2002 11:51:20 AM
Further, the Republican "excuse" for inaction is somewhat of a fiction anyway, considering the aggressive foreign policy pursued during the Clinton era in other situations (Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo, to name three).
'Aggressive' is the wrong adjective for x42's foreign policy in almost any sphere. 'Feckless' would be a more accurate description, since he repeatedly violated promises to pull US troops out of Bosnia which were originally committed by GHWB for a temporary tour of duty. Kosovo was even more misguided and muddled strategically, and it's a misnomer to call an air campaign of questionable efficacy 'aggressive', IAC, particularly given blunders such as the bombing of the Chinese embassy. Finally, Haiti? Don't make me laugh. That was nothing but a half hearted and failed attempt at nation building.
549. Indiana Jones - 4/30/2002 12:14:30 PM
concerned: My point is that Clinton was able to carry out foreign policy initiatives--even those involving military force and commitment--in the face of Republican opposition. That the best he could muster against Bin Laden was some errant cruise missiles indicates more of a lack of desire or will than opposition party interference. Further, had the Clinton administration a realistic assessment of Bin Laden's threat yet not pursued a more aggressive policy toward elmininating it merely because of perceived Republican opposition, then I think that a worse admission than simply confessing to an underestimation of Bin Laden's capabilities.
Similarly and going back to my original point of contention with wonkers, I think the Bush administration, now having the example of Bin Laden as hindsight, must be even more responsible in dealing with the probabilities and eventualities of a Saddam-controlled Iraq.
550. concerned - 4/30/2002 1:39:53 PM
Similarly and going back to my original point of contention with wonkers, I think the Bush administration, now having the example of Bin Laden as hindsight, must be even more responsible in dealing with the probabilities and eventualities of a Saddam-controlled Iraq.
I agree, and have a few qualms about the latest reports I'm hearing that any US military offensive will be put off until 2003, largely because of the additional time that Saddam will be given to prepare for any incursion. OTOH, the Bush administration may be using this time, besides conducting anti-terrorism operations in the Philippines and elsewhere, in helping to facilitate the creation of an internal opposition force/follow on transitional government to Saddam's regime. More cynically, GWB may have decided that if the operation in Iraq does not go as smoothly as in the Gulf War or Afghanistan, that any political hit he would take is best delayed until after the midterm elections.
551. Indiana Jones - 4/30/2002 1:50:44 PM
The Bush administration may be using this time,
besides conducting anti-terrorism operations in the Philippines and elsewhere, in helping to facilitate the creation of an internal opposition force/follow on transitional government to Saddam's regime.
Why would this be more successful in the next few months than in the previous dozen years? Do you think that terrorist groups in the Phillipines are more of a threat than Saddam and Iraq?
More cynically, GWB may have decided that if the operation in Iraq does not go as smoothly as in the Gulf War or Afghanistan, that any political hit he would take is best delayed until after the midterm elections.
If Bush actually reasons like this he is both too incompetent and too mendacious to be President.
552. ronski - 4/30/2002 1:54:08 PM
You left out too Clintonian.
553. concerned - 4/30/2002 3:54:06 PM
Re. 551 -
I didn't mention, but perhaps should have, that I consider that it may be possible that the US may also be taking this time to reinforce its armaments so as to maximize its advantage prior to initiating an open conflict with Iraq.
Re. 552 -
ha ha ha. Maybe.
554. concerned - 4/30/2002 4:11:21 PM
Also, as much as I prefer this administration over the last one, I wouldn't go so far as to credit it for having planned things this way, but there's the fact that N. Korea and Iraq are making some relatively conciliatory noises to the US right now. Perhaps GWB and Co. want to take a little time to play this angle before dropping the hammer, if necessary.
555. robertjayb - 4/30/2002 4:30:25 PM
OSAMA-at-large: Day 231
556. concerned - 5/1/2002 1:30:33 AM
Not trace of bin Laden since November 2001.
557. concerned - 5/1/2002 1:31:14 AM
Erratum:
No trace of bin Laden since December 2001.
558. concerned - 5/1/2002 2:31:28 AM
Russian General says Shamil Basayev Killed
I'm hoping this is true, and that this prefigures the end of the criminal Chechnyan Islamic insurgency. You really want to keep the hits coming, particularly with the IDF looking vulnerable in Jenin.
559. Indiana Jones - 5/1/2002 8:37:32 AM
How long has Eric Rudolph been "at large"? How long was Joseph Mengele "at large"?
It's pretty difficult to find a single individual even within the US (i.e., where law enforcement is generally a given and the populace cooperative). In addition to Rudolph, look at the case of Chandra Levy. And when the populace may not be so convivial and man hunts not so welcome--as the Clinton administration discovered in Somalia--tracking down one person is no simple task. Focusing too much on it at the expense of discretion can be costly.
There is no guarantee that Bin Laden is even alive at this point and hence that he'll ever be found.
560. jexster - 5/1/2002 10:12:42 AM
Axis of Incompetence
On the shambles that is the Bush foreign policy
561. Indiana Jones - 5/1/2002 11:11:41 AM
> Manichaeism
The buzzword of the month.
562. ronski - 5/1/2002 11:16:58 AM
I heard a radio report this morning that about a thousand U.S. troops are heading for a possible big battle on the Pakistan-Afghani border and that bin Laden has been reported in the area.
Whatever that means.
563. jexster - 5/1/2002 11:28:43 AM
And Indy I am sure is most proud that I expounded on the Manichean Heretic's grave errors in the R&P Thread quite some time ago.
564. Indiana Jones - 5/1/2002 12:25:28 PM
Reuters
Might be what you heard about, ronski.
The Pentagon believes hundreds of al Qaeda fighters of fugitive Osama bin Laden, blamed for September attacks on America, and their Taliban allies could be gathering in the area.
565. concerned - 5/2/2002 2:21:57 AM
Re. 558 -
A potentially very positive development on the Chechen front is the aide to Shamil Basayev calling for the end of guerilla warfare.
If this is or becomes the widespread feeling among the Chechen insurgents, the bloodshed in Chechnya may finally abate, after nearly a decade of violence.
Remember, you read it here first. I don't post idiotic conspiratorical crap such as about Israeli spy rings in the US which, when exposed as baseless propaganda disseminated by freedom's enemies, demonstrates little but the credulity and stupidity of those who are inclined to parrot such things.
566. OhioSTOPAS - 5/2/2002 4:53:27 PM
Here are some provocative and depressing (But accurate? I don't know) remarks from journalist Seymour Hersh.
567. wonkers2 - 5/2/2002 5:00:29 PM
Unfortunately, he's mostly right, I think.
568. CalGal - 5/2/2002 5:12:00 PM
You think? I think he sounds wacko, for the most part.
569. Rama - 5/2/2002 5:19:05 PM
It reads as if he were drunk.
570. concerned - 5/2/2002 5:21:40 PM
I think 'rambling' is one of the kinder things that you can say about Hersh's speech. Judging by this link you certainly wouldn't get the idea that he can translate any coherent thought processes into reasoned speech extemporaneously, but I know he must have them, based on his writing, if nothing else.
I wish Hersh had described what he thought would have constituted 'winning' the war in Afghanistan or how ,he believes the US should stop 'manufacturing terrorists', or what he thinks the 'root causes' of terrorism are that both the last administration and the Bush Administration are missing with their very different approaches to world terrorism. I wish Hersh had provided at least one example of how he believes Ashcroft is 'attacking' Lindh with 'confidential' testimony.
I could go on and on, but it certainly seems to me that Hersh's speech is extremely short on content and long on vague posturing.
571. Cellar Door - 5/2/2002 5:24:01 PM
Sy Hersh
572. Rama - 5/2/2002 5:43:28 PM
That was already linked in post 566.
573. concerned - 5/2/2002 6:03:11 PM
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned how strange it would have seemed even less than a year ago to have a relative handful of British and American troops running up and down and back and forth in SE Afghanistan and Pakistan hunting down Al Qaeda without interference from the local chieftains.
A bit different than in the days of Lord Elphinstone or even the Soviets. Looks like a little baksheesh and a fearsome military reputation go a long way in some corners of the world.
574. Rama - 5/2/2002 6:05:20 PM
Yes, it is funny how the "accepted wisdom" can change so rapidly, and the change go unmentioned.
575. CalGal - 5/3/2002 5:03:12 PM
Big Visions for Security Post Shrink Amid Political Drama
I think it's kind of amusing that it is Congress trying to get Ridge a cabinet-level post. Why would the White House disapprove?
576. wonkers2 - 5/3/2002 5:05:47 PM
Yeah, Ridge gets dissed by sub-cabinet officials in Defense and Justice about once a week.
577. OhioSTOPAS - 5/3/2002 5:10:50 PM
Cal: I've heard that the grounds for the White House's refusal to have Ridge testify before Congress is that he is NOT officially a Cabinet officer. Thus Congress is happy to make him one, and the White House not so.
578. CalGal - 5/3/2002 5:17:50 PM
Ohio, I agree. But why should the White House not want him to testify before Congress? Why wouldn't they want Homeland Security to be Cabinet Level?
579. jexster - 5/3/2002 5:57:27 PM
Militia Propaganda and Exploding Pipe Bombs Now in Your Local RFD Boxes
580. ronski - 5/3/2002 6:43:30 PM
Blame Canada.
They came up with the idea.
(Or was it technically the Scots, who about that time used to blow up mailboxes in Scotland that had the English-version of the Queen's insignia, E.R. II, rather than the preferred Scottish usage, E.R. II & I.
581. Rama - 5/3/2002 6:58:06 PM
Ohio, I agree. But why should the White House not want him to testify before Congress? Why wouldn't they want Homeland Security to be Cabinet Level?
Generally, legislative branch oversight is nothing but a hassle for the executive branch (the system is designed that way).
Cabinet heads have to be approved by the Congress. Currently, the White House can't get it judicial nominees approved.
Also, the Homeland Defense activities cut across the turf of at least a dozen different congresional committees, and they all want to get their licks in. As long as the HD org is sub-Cabinet, the executive branch has a much freer hand, and a lot fewer cooks stirring the pot.
582. CalGal - 5/4/2002 12:03:53 PM
Rama, I understand that. But then why create the position to start with? If it's just an advising position, then it has no power. So in the end, Bush has to decide which is more important--having a flunky who can't report to Congress, or having a powerful administrator who has to.
I am both heartened and aggravated to learn that someone in the FBI noticed the pattern of Arabs with terrorist connections taking flight lessons
It is nice to know that someone in the FBI had the brains to spot the pattern. But how the fuck could they ignore it?
It also makes me angry that we're busy blaming airports and airlines for security that had little to do with the problem, but not hauling the FBI out to dry over their failure to act on this.
583. robertjayb - 5/5/2002 2:18:21 PM
But Louie Freeh was too busy checking The Big Dog's pecker...
584. RustlerPike - 5/5/2002 8:58:12 PM
rjb:
But Louie Freeh was too busy checking The Big Dog's pecker...
And his anus, too. Remember there was oral-anal contact too. Very important, from a national security pov.
585. joezan - 5/5/2002 9:17:45 PM
That's just nasty.
586. RustlerPike - 5/6/2002 2:09:13 AM
Was the anus thing on Imus?
587. Rama - 5/6/2002 10:00:25 AM
But then why create the position to start with?
Well, see, there was this big terrorist attack. And so it seemed like a good idea to look at upgrading our domestic security processes. But it isn't clear that you need some big new government agency, since mostly this sort of thing will be most efficiently done by changes to existing government agencies.
If it's just an advising position, then it has no power.
No, it has the power of the president. Which is good enough for a good deal of change. The existing government agencies are not as likely to dig in their heals to protect their turf, when it appears that this is a Presidential initiative, not a whole new agency.
So in the end, Bush has to decide which is more important--having a flunky who can't report to Congress, or having a powerful administrator who has to.
Nope. He has to decide whether he wants to fight the Congress and continue with this strategy, or give in and pursue a different one.
But how the fuck could they ignore it?
I believe this is an incorrect characterization. It wasn't ignored. There is nothing illegal with taking flying lessons. It isn't probable cause for arrest or even surveillance.
It also makes me angry that we're busy blaming airports and airlines for security that had little to do with the problem, but not hauling the FBI out to dry over their failure to act on this.
No good would come from "hauling the FBI out to dry".
Do you think there are a bunch of "better" FBI wannabes who would jump at the chance to join up if you just got rid of the incumbents? Or that the current FBI personnel would do a much better job, if only they were yelled at?
Do you really think you have a very good understanding of what it takes to do the various jobs the FBI has to do?
588. CalGal - 5/6/2002 10:37:03 AM
Rama,
No, it has the power of the president.
No, it doesn't.
It wasn't ignored.
Yes, it was.
Actually, the rest of your questions and comments were equally silly, so I don't know why I picked those to out to respond to.
Must be Monday.
589. Rama - 5/6/2002 11:46:05 AM
Must be Monday.
I hope that explains it. Otherwise, claiming that the guy the President says is in charge of something doesn't have the authority of the President, and that the FBI following normal investigative practices is "ignoring" an issue, are fairly inexplicable.
590. CalGal - 5/7/2002 3:35:34 PM
Rama,
I can't remember where, but I just read that Andrew Card is analyzing the position and determining whether it will exist at all, be a cabinet level position, or be split up among several agencies.
Apparently the White House agrees with me, if so.
On a different note:
Lindh Case Could Falter Over Witness Interviews
A federal judge warned yesterday that if the government's national security concerns prevent John Walker Lindh's attorneys from interviewing detained witnesses who might help clear him, the Justice Department might have to drop its case against the man captured with Taliban fighters.
591. Rama - 5/7/2002 4:18:39 PM
A federal judge warned yesterday that if the government's national security concerns prevent John Walker Lindh's attorneys from interviewing detained witnesses who might help clear him, the
Justice Department might have to drop its case against the man captured with Taliban fighters.
This judge obviousely hasn't spoken to wonkers or jonesastlaw.
592. Daniel Sickles - 5/7/2002 5:27:57 PM
The Myth of Poverty Breeding Terror
593. CalGal - 5/7/2002 6:01:52 PM
Gosh, that explanation seems neatly tailored to Muslim terrorism. How come Muslims are the only third world terrorists? And what about our own domestic terrorism? Why have African Americans never turned to terrorism, whereas rural white boys often do? Why do Arabs and Muslims routinely turned to terrorism, but not non-Muslim Africans? Why do certain European populations use it, but not the Jews?
African Americans and non-Muslim Africans are often economically isolated, as well. And "American foreign policy" changes are unlikely to stop the Iowa pipe bomber.
I still think that it's a sort of humiliation, but nothing as simple as Palestinian checkpoints. What do rural white boys, the Irish, the Basques, and Muslims have in common? A sense of lost glory, maybe? Coupled with the very real knowledge that they themselves have no ability to recapture it?
Eh. It's no news that poverty doesn't breed terrorism. But neither does foreign policy or economic isolation.
594. jexster - 5/7/2002 6:13:39 PM
From the site of grunge rock band Apathy
"The Angelfire site you are trying to reach has been temporarily suspended due to excessive bandwidth consumption.
The site will be available again in approximately 2 hours!"
Pipebomber site
595. concerned - 5/7/2002 6:14:34 PM
Why have African Americans never turned to terrorism, whereas rural white boys often do?
CalGal's never heard of the Black Power Movement, Animal Rights Terrorists or Left Wing Anarchists or Anti-Globalists for that matter, has she? What connection did the people who have attempted to assassinate presidents have with 'rural white boys'?
596. jexster - 5/7/2002 6:21:09 PM
The Ideology of the Black Panther Party
The Weather Underground
597. CalGal - 5/7/2002 6:37:38 PM
Black Power Movement, Animal Rights Terrorists or Left Wing Anarchists or Anti-Globalists for that matter, has she?
Not under those names. I don't think there has ever been an African American terrorist group, has there? As for the others, I don't think any of them qualify as terrorists yet, but to the extent that they do, so what?
Assassinating presidents, or attempting to, isn't de facto terrorism.
598. CalGal - 5/7/2002 6:43:54 PM
Mulling this over some more: even if Black Panthers or other organizations were to have committed terrorist acts, it would still suggest that something is different about that particular group--otherwise, terrorism would spring up spontaneously in the African American community, which it didn't.
599. concerned - 5/7/2002 6:44:15 PM
Can you say Black Panthers killing cops is any less terroristic than a nutcase injuring postal workers with pipe bombs? I don't think so.
As for the groups I mentioned and their particular varieties of terrorism, my point is that they are signally not 'rural white boys', and to imply that 'rural white boys' are more prone to terrorism that other groups cries out for the correction I made.
600. CalGal - 5/7/2002 6:48:26 PM
Can you say Black Panthers killing cops is any less terroristic than a nutcase injuring postal workers with pipe bombs?
Did the Black Panthers set out to kill cops, ambush them and trap them?
As for the groups I mentioned and their particular varieties of terrorism, my point is that they are signally not 'rural white boys'
Neither are Basques, Jews, or the Irish.
601. concerned - 5/7/2002 6:48:43 PM
Of course, we're not generally talking about 'groups' of 'rural white boys' committing terrorism, any more than other groups of other individuals IAC, so that's really not an issue.
602. concerned - 5/7/2002 6:50:31 PM
Did the Black Panthers set out to kill cops, ambush them and trap them?
Most definitely to at least the former two. These things don't repeatedly occur due to mere accident, I hope you agree.
603. joezan - 5/7/2002 7:00:39 PM
Well for one thing, terrorism as we now define it did not exist when the Panthers were running rampant.
Also, the US - Black and White - was a lot less tolerant of random violence then than now. The Panthers used the most extreme, violent tactics they could use and still hope to retain a measure of support for their cause.
Had they done much of what they always threatened to do - hold a Kill a Whitey Day, for example - the police, and maybe even the government - would have blasted them to kingdom-come and probably come down hard on the more legitimate Black rights organizations, and there would have been, I believe, hardly a peep from the left.
604. CalGal - 5/7/2002 7:04:07 PM
Well for one thing, terrorism as we now define it did not exist when the Panthers were running rampant.
That's not true. Terrorism has been around for centuries. But more specifically, there were quite a number of terrorist groups running around in the 60s and 70s, both here at home and abroad. The IRA, the PLO, and locally, the SLA.
The Panthers used the most extreme, violent tactics they could use and still hope to retain a measure of support for their cause.
That's not terrorism.
605. joezan - 5/7/2002 7:14:15 PM
I should have been more clear: In this country, terrorism did not exist. The brand of terror practiced by the PLO or IRA at that time would not have gotten the Panthers anywhere - in fact, they would have lost support had they gone around committing random murder, and they knew it.
The SLA were bankrobbers/extortionists who made ominous threats. Nothing more. They were all about getting money.
That's not terrorism.
That was my point.
606. CalGal - 5/7/2002 7:14:17 PM
To be clear, here is the FBI's definition of terrorism:
Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
But in any event, I think you and Concerned are missing the point. I'm not arguing that blacks aren't capable of terrorism. I'm saying that humiliation isn't sufficient to spawn terrorism, because the US would have suffered some hundred years of terrorism from angry African Americans if that were all it needed.
So if you come up with a black group that does commit terrorism--and I honestly can't think of anything the BP did that qualifies--then fine. What additional attribute did they have that pushed them to terrorism? That would be the common element, if any existed. Not mere humiliation by a powerful enemy.
607. joezan - 5/7/2002 7:15:49 PM
I think we're mostly on the same page here, Cal.
608. CalGal - 5/7/2002 7:16:22 PM
The brand of terror practiced by the PLO or IRA at that time would not have gotten the Panthers anywhere - in fact, they would have lost support had they gone around committing random murder, and they knew it.
That didn't stop white militants from turning terrorist. And no black groups have taken it up in the past 15 years.
609. robertjayb - 5/7/2002 9:45:15 PM
Mailbox bombing suspect nabbed in Nevada...
610. CalGal - 5/7/2002 11:04:49 PM
New Rules to Screen Students
Foreign students seeking to do advanced work in sensitive subjects and technologies taught only at American universities or laboratories will be screened by a special panel that will include representatives of intelligence and law enforcement agencies under new regulations unveiled today by the Bush administration.
The regulations, which officials from the White House Office on Science and Technology Policy discussed today with members of Congress and representatives of colleges and universities, are in response to heightened fears after Sept. 11 that potential terrorists could use knowledge gained in the United States to prepare weapons of mass destruction.
So I guess we'll see a lot of Islamist English majors.
611. CalGal - 5/7/2002 11:24:33 PM
Bomb on Pakistan Bus Kills 10
The majority of the victims were German, which is the second time that Muslim countries have been less than welcoming to German tourists.
612. concerned - 5/8/2002 1:14:27 AM
Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
CalGal -
This precisely makes my point. The Black Panthers and the enviro-terrorists, etc, that I mentioned meet each of the requirements listed above.
They all resorted to the "unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property"
(this is where the killing of police officers is included) "to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof"
(local, state or federal government, in this case)
"in furtherance of political or social objectives" (such as AA separatism or a change in social/legal status).
So, I'm precisely right (as is the rest of society) in calling these actions terrorism.
Ok, here's you: "But that doesn't make it terrorism."
Just saying it don't mean shit if you can't back it up, Calgal. And you can't. At least try not to rabbit on about how some lunatic who put pipe bombs in mailboxes is a terrorist when he doesn't even meet the requisites nearly as well as the cases I mentioned that you are attempting to deny in the face of all facts and accepted definitions.
Sheesh!
613. concerned - 5/8/2002 1:31:22 AM
I'm not arguing that blacks aren't capable of terrorism. I'm saying that humiliation isn't sufficient to spawn terrorism, because the US would have suffered some hundred years of terrorism from angry African Americans if that were all it needed.
I see that CalGal is moving on to a different 'point' here, one with which I have no essential disagreement. But I believe I've adequately made my case, that 'rural farm boys' cannot be pegged as being particularly prone to terrorism, particularly on the essentially nonexistent grounds that CalGal attempted to categorize them on. For that matter, the Unabomber was an 'urban city boy'. Are we through with the silly categorizing yet?
614. robertjayb - 5/8/2002 1:39:22 AM
Terrorist or Fruitloop?
...a letter the mailbox bomber sent to the Badger Herald at the U. of Wisconsin....
615. concerned - 5/8/2002 1:41:37 AM
On to more germane matters: In Saudi Arabia, an Extreme Problem
I should point out that, for more than six years preceding 1997, and, indeed, all the way until 2001, fundamentalist Islamic terrorism leapt from one success to the next with little dissuasion from the occasional cruise missile. In this light, SA's caving to the fear of such is explicable. However, the obverse side of this is that the significantly increased steadfastness of those targeted by Islamic extremists and the sharp reverses that the Islamists have experienced since then should allow less inflamed opinions to prevail in SA and, hopefully, other countries in the mideast.
616. concerned - 5/8/2002 1:45:18 AM
Re. 614 -
My vote is for 'fruitloop'. There's no actionable or achievable demand that he makes, therefore what he's doing falls short of being definable as terrorism on that basis.
617. concerned - 5/8/2002 1:59:44 AM
Good news. None of the postal employees were seriously hurt by Helder's pipe bombs. Nothing like blowing away a bunch of pigs or anything. Well, the FBI says what he's doing amounts to domestic terrorism for the moment but, clearly nowhere near as much a problem as the enviroterrorists or leftist radical groups I brought up.
618. Wombat - 5/8/2002 7:54:59 AM
Helder is a terrorist the same way as Theodore Kazcynski was...or wasn't.
619. wonkers2 - 5/8/2002 8:48:54 AM
Combatting What?
620. wonkers2 - 5/8/2002 9:08:52 AM
Kristoff says redraw plan to uproot terrorism
621. jexster - 5/8/2002 12:37:45 PM
622. wonkers2 - 5/8/2002 12:44:53 PM
Nice looking young lad. Who would've suspected.
623. PelleNilsson - 5/8/2002 3:24:30 PM
Guys with phony ties are always suspect.
624. robertjayb - 5/8/2002 3:36:40 PM
TeeVee says Helder,in his dash across the country, was stopped twice for speeding and once for not wearing a seatbelt. Apparently cops didn't find him suspicious.
625. rubberducky - 5/8/2002 3:46:23 PM
Pipe Bomb Suspect Admits Guilt, FBI Says
RENO, Nev. (Reuters) - A 21-year-old student arrested for allegedly planting 18 pipe bombs across the United States confessed his deeds to the FBI (news - web sites) and said he was ready to blow himself up to deliver his anti-government message, according to affidavits filed on Wednesday.
In papers filed with U.S. District Court in Nevada, the FBI said Luke Helder admitted both to the agency and separately to his father that he built and planted the pipe bombs that sowed terror across five states, injuring six people.
"Helder admitted manufacturing eight pipe bombs in his apartment in Wisconsin. Helder further admitted to assembling a further 16 pipe bombs in a motel in Nebraska near Omaha," one of two affidavits said, adding he confessed to placing 18 of the devices in states from Illinois to Texas.
...
The FBI filings detailed how agents zeroed in on Helder -- a University of Wisconsin art student dubbed clean-cut and likable by friends -- as the unlikely suspect in a pipe bomb campaign that officials have described as "domestic terrorism".
FBI Special Agent Scott French said officials learned of Helder after his father received a letter from him on May 6. The letter gave Cameron Helder a clear idea that his son was behind the bombings, the FBI said.
Cameron Helder of Pine Lake, Minnesota, contacted local police who alerted the FBI. Cameron Helder described a number of suspicious comments in his son's letter, which allegedly included anti-government statements much like those which accompanied the pipe bombs.
626. CalGal - 5/8/2002 3:46:58 PM
Did I hear this morning that his dad turned him in?
627. rubberducky - 5/8/2002 3:47:27 PM
yeap
628. CalGal - 5/8/2002 3:48:16 PM
Crosspost, obviously.
629. rubberducky - 5/8/2002 3:49:14 PM
yes, just having some fun with ya
630. thoughtful - 5/8/2002 3:50:21 PM
do you think maybe hotels/motels ought to suggest to their cleaning staff that if they see guests with pipes, wires, nails, explosives, etc. they might want to bring it to the attention of the management?
631. CalGal - 5/8/2002 3:50:36 PM
Fun can be had.
632. thoughtful - 5/8/2002 3:57:43 PM
On a bus trip on the plane read an old nyer mag i came across from 1996 about the jailing of Mousa Abu Marzook who was a Hamas leader who happened to have a permanent visa to the US...was a diplomat of sorts and was responsible for raising lots of money through islamic charities in the states to support hamas. Interesting article with today's hindsight. Even at that time the US was negotiating directly with hamas recognizing that arafat is not in complete control of the situation. Spin on the article was that marzook was a moderate who wanted peace and was willing to negotiate for peace and that jailing him was not exactly the diplomatic thing to do
633. Andonly - 5/8/2002 4:21:06 PM
"a University of Wisconsin art student dubbed clean-cut and likable by friends"
Well, that right there should've rung some emergency bells. It just violates everything known about art students.
634. Andonly - 5/8/2002 4:22:16 PM
We'll probably find out later that the pipe bombs were a performance piece entitled "Old Lady With Blood on Her Face".
635. AytchMan - 5/8/2002 4:41:30 PM
Very surprised to learn that Helder's middle name was not Dwayne.
636. wonkers2 - 5/8/2002 4:42:01 PM
We should follow the Sharon approach and have the Army destroy the U of Wisconsin nest of terrorists where Held came from.
637. jexster - 5/8/2002 5:22:23 PM
Bus Bomb Kills 14 in Pakistan
So where the b-52 and the daisy cutters?
Is it because Mussaraf is Little Georgie's play pal?
Or because the French bite and nobody gives a shit?
638. jexster - 5/8/2002 5:23:10 PM
I am lost in a moral fog
639. Rama - 5/8/2002 6:33:56 PM
I am lost in a moral fog
So very, very true.
640. concerned - 5/8/2002 6:55:43 PM
Re. 633 -
Regarding the metaphysical impossibility of 'clean cut' art students: Perhaps Left Winger Helder was in deep camouflage?
641. jexster - 5/9/2002 8:27:34 AM
He blamed the attack on "terrorists," the usual Kremlin term to describe separatist rebels in Chechnya (news - web sites), which borders the impoverished province of Dagestan where the attack took place.
I've no quarrel with the claim that the Kremlin uses the T word routinely this way but we are fighting a global war now and Russia is our ally and people that kill 29 civilians celebrating victory in the Great Patriotic War are our enemies because they are enemies of our soul mate.
Little moral clarity please.
642. jexster - 5/9/2002 8:32:04 AM
"He is being described as an intelligent young man with strong family ties," Jim Bogner, the F.B.I.'s special agent in charge of Nebraska and Iowa, said at an afternoon news conference in Omaha.
WHEW!
I guess we no longer have to be concerned about Concern!
643. OhioSTOPAS - 5/9/2002 2:00:59 PM
Helder is a product of those subversive Upper Midwest values. MUCH worse than Marin County!
644. ronski - 5/9/2002 2:04:08 PM
Good chance he's a Lutheran, too.
645. CalGal - 5/9/2002 2:05:15 PM
I hate discussing terrorism with a political skew. I'm not demanding it stop, just wailing about the desire to do so.
646. jexster - 5/9/2002 2:05:48 PM
That accent!
Prolly Pelle's cousin
What a fox though...those Swedes maybe wacked but damned if they aren't purty (Pelle being exception that proves rule)
647. PelleNilsson - 5/9/2002 2:34:00 PM
Accent? What accent? Whose accent?
648. robertjayb - 5/9/2002 4:19:09 PM
Helder was adopted and raised Catholic.
649. concerned - 5/9/2002 4:20:07 PM
Here's a Pakistani Islamonut claiming, among other things, that India stage managed the terrorist attack on its own parliament. So, you see, Muslims never stoop to terrorism, nonono. Such incidents as 9/11 are always perpetrated by the host state or the Mossad to provide the pretext necessary to pick on innocent, defenseless, peaceloving (barbeque style) Islamofascists.
650. concerned - 5/9/2002 4:22:27 PM
So Helder was a Catholic Leftist airhead. Whoop de do!
651. concerned - 5/9/2002 4:23:28 PM
Wasn't JFK a Catholic and a Democrat? Why, yes he was.
652. OhioSTOPAS - 5/9/2002 4:33:11 PM
Wasn't David Duke a Protestant and a Republican? Why, yes he is.
(In other words: What's your point??)
653. concerned - 5/9/2002 4:42:04 PM
Why not ask RJB that regarding his post 648?
654. OhioSTOPAS - 5/9/2002 4:50:03 PM
A few months ago, when the pending Supreme Court case regarding school vouchers was in the news, some articles by voucher proponents (e.g., the Wall Street Journal editorial page) compared the advocacy of school vouchers to Brown v. Board of Education and the struggle to end school segregation.
I found that analogy offensive in the way it trivialized the evil of racial segregation.
But check out the analogy in this article.
655. OhioSTOPAS - 5/9/2002 4:53:32 PM
(That post was intended for Politics, so I'll re-post it there.)
656. CalGal - 5/9/2002 11:17:53 PM
An Anti-American Boycott Is Growing in the Arab World
Andonly, it's time for the oil boycott!
I cannot fucking believe that they have the almighty gall to say "Oh, well, we have to use software but we won't drink Starbucks." Fuck, they don't have any more integrity than the idiotic antiglobalists.
Saudi parents report that their children vie in the schoolyard to list all the American things they avoid.
It is time to cause the Saudis to suffer a tad, I think. Hell, I'd even ride a bike to work if the Saudis had to sweat oil prices.
657. concerned - 5/10/2002 2:01:01 AM
When the Arabs progress to staging sit-ins and singing Kumbayah, we'll be getting somewhere.
CalGal and 'caring' Mote Lefties in general-
Time to trade in your SUV or truck for a subcompact, hybrid vehicle, bike or public transit.
For my part, I don't drive a gas guzzler and have planted over 150 trees this year alone. What's your excuse?
658. concerned - 5/10/2002 2:01:53 AM
Soccer Mom creed: They can have my SUV when they pry my cold, dead fingers from the steering wheel.
659. rubberducky - 5/10/2002 10:13:39 AM
how to fight terrorism at home? get rid of smiley faces
RENO, Nev. May 9‚ 2002 5:45PM - The 21-year-old college student accused of putting pipe bombs in mailboxes in five states told authorities he was trying to make a "smiley face" pattern on the map, a sheriff said Thursday.
The first 16 bombs were arranged in two circles, one in Illinois and Iowa and the other in Nebraska. On a map, the circles could resemble the eyes of the 1970s happiness symbol. The final two bombs, found in Colorado and Texas, form an arc that could be the beginning of a smile.
"There was a comment made to one of my officers about his hope to make a smiley face when he was all finished," Pershing County Sheriff Ron Skinner said.
Skinner said Luke Helder made the comments to an undercover county officer shortly after his arrest outside Reno on Tuesday.
...
The FBI said Helder placed 18 pipe bombs in mailboxes in Iowa, Illinois, Nebraska, Colorado and Texas, along with anti-government notes. Six of the bombs exploded last Friday, injuring four letter carriers and two residents.
The eight bombs in Iowa and Illinois were found in rural locations that form an uneven ring about 70 miles in diameter. The Nebraska bomb sites - about 350 miles away - form a ring about 90 miles across.
The other bombs were found hundreds of miles away - one in Salida, Colo., the other in Amarillo, Texas.
660. Wombat - 5/10/2002 10:25:39 AM
So it's "bombs across America" instead of "hands across America."
661. rubberducky - 5/10/2002 10:26:22 AM
aw, give peace a chance
662. AytchMan - 5/10/2002 4:08:34 PM
Y'know, I hate to say it but Helder must be giving Al Qaeda some ideas about how to upset the heartland.
Talk about a cost-efficient terror attack. Fifty bucks for supplies, fifty bucks for gas. Three terrorists could spell out "Jihad" in a week.
663. CalGal - 5/10/2002 6:29:33 PM
Hahahahaha. All very funny.
Answering Sharon
The sort of deconstructing piece that Kinsley does so well, whether you agree with him or not. I don't quote the opening paragraph here, but it's a hoot, so check out the link.
In any event the report Sharon's government released last week, based on captured documents, makes pretty clear that Arafat is at least guilty of the related offense of "harboring" terrorists -- which Bush has insisted repeatedly since Sept. 11 is just as bad as terrorism itself and should be dealt with accordingly.
So? So? So? So the right answer to Sharon's question is that, on second thought, terrorism is not an evil that transcends all other considerations. This does not mean, as some would have it, that suicide bombing is justified as a legitimate response of an oppressed people. There may be circumstances where that is true, but the circumstance of the Palestinians (who, among other considerations, have effectively won their fight for statehood in principle and are arguing about the details) is not even close. Nevertheless, an illegitimate tactic used in a legitimate cause, as part of a conflict with legitimate and illegitimate tactics and aspirations on both sides, is different from an illegitimate tactic used for purposes that are utterly crazed and malevolent.
In short, circumstances matter. They may not matter morally, but they matter in terms of what you do about it. This fairly obvious point --which the Bush administration clearly believes, though it cannot say so --undermines the very concept of "terrorism," which is based on the premise that circumstances do not matter. The axiom is that terrorist tactics are uniquely evil and uniquely threatening to civilization, and demand an uncompromising response.
664. Rama - 5/10/2002 8:04:51 PM
In short, circumstances matter.
"Matter"? What the heck does that mean?
665. Andonly - 5/11/2002 10:31:52 AM
"Helder was adopted and raised Catholic."
Now, see, this is the problem with adopting children. They can grow up to be terrorists. I say, no more adoptions.
666. Andonly - 5/11/2002 11:12:35 AM
Regarding my energy boycott, it is well underway.
For the last two Fridays, we have spent a little more than an hour each evening living by candlelight. It's lovely and rather peaceful, if admittedly only a symbolic gesture.
Where vehicles are concerned, we can't afford a hybrid right now, and biking in northern New Jersey is not very safe exercise. However, we do eschew SUVs and vans, preferring to drive Hondas that get good mileage--a minimum of 30 mpg. The 1997 Civic is used for the daily commute of about 60 miles round trip (there's no effective rail access). Our 1992 Accord station wagon with standard transmission is for hauling recycling to the dump every few weeks, loading up with groceries, transporting dog and offspring to various nearby locations, taking trips to Massachusetts to see family or attend conferences, and making forays to the Home Depot garden center (the wagon will just barely accommodate a seven-foot sapling).
For the life of me, I have no idea why most people need an SUV or minivan. (Although one friend of mine succumbed after she was hit, while driving a smallish sedan, by a guy in a truck. In an SUV she feels safer, and says her visibility over all the other monstrosities has improved now that she has size parity.)
667. Andonly - 5/11/2002 11:12:49 AM
An interesting effect of the Friday night power boycott is that I find myself more aware in general of using energy, so have become more conscientious about turning off lights when they're not really needed. Every time I turn off a light, I feel like my hand has just executed a fuck-you in the general direction of OPEC. Cooking dinner on the barbecue grill (wood coals, not petroleum briquets) instead of the gas stove, I chortle heh, heh, heh under my breath. This kosher chicken, this sliced eggplant, are in no way subsidized by the mullahs.
We already set our furnace's thermostat at 62 degrees in the winter, but keeping the AC off this summer probably won't be easy.
I will also confess to having developed an aversion lately to purchasing anything made in France or Italy. This is counterproductive, perhaps, but the French are annoying on many fronts, and every time I go to pick up some pasta or canned tomatoes I can't help thinking of that La Stampa cartoon in which the baby Jesus is saying, "They're crucifying me again".
Fuck them too, I think: we'll eat less pasta this week, and more tahine and falafel imported from Israel. Maybe I'll grow Romas this year and put them up for the winter.
668. CalGal - 5/11/2002 12:12:47 PM
I don't use a great deal of energy; I own an apartment, am pretty religious about turning off lights, but probably undo some of that good with the vast array of electronics I own. Right at the moment I work just 20 minutes away, but I go to Berkeley this fall and, quite apart from gas pump considerations, it is impossible to get from Hwy 80 to the campus in under 30 minutes by car no matter how close it seems. So I'm investigating using public transportation for some portion of that commute. Spawn is already a fan of buses and trains--anything that allows independence from "Hey, Mom, can you take me to...." can only be considered A Good Thing.
I still think you need a website and a campaign.
669. CalGal - 5/11/2002 12:32:55 PM
Phantom International Justice
Terrific piece, I thought, on why it is such a horrible idea to use the criminal justice system for military matters.
670. jexster - 5/11/2002 7:58:17 PM
Afghan Terror Network Is Still a Threat, U.S. Says
Military: American commander declares that Al Qaeda and the Taliban remain viable.LAT
Minimum Security - Anerica's Dangerous Indifference to Afghanistan
671. jexster - 5/11/2002 8:12:53 PM
Not bad analysis of the problems of international criminal justice.
As a Charter (and only) Member of the Fuck Bush, Free Manuel Justice Action Network I'd be hard pressed to disagree with most of it.
Absent shared value consensus and uniform statutes we can't expect the result to match US domestic standards.
But should we set expectations on that basis?
Is the conclusion lacking precisely because the premise which drives it is lacking?
Who cares that Moosesawi (ph) is "using" our courts for a platform to his personal detriment?
Adolph Hitler's domestic terrorism bought him a court platform too. Its not an unheard of trial tactic to use political social issues as a defense or for that matter as a basis for prosecutions either as any ADA will tell you.
And as for Johnny B Free Lindh, if the US has a choice - either give him the full protections of US law to which he as a citizen is entitled or don't try him. And isn't he more the victim of a political prosecution than a participant in a criminal conspiracy to kill US citizens in the first instance?
672. joezan - 5/11/2002 8:52:53 PM
OhioSlopass:
Helder is a product of those subversive Upper Midwest values. MUCH worse than Marin County!
Uh...
No.
How about a pot-smoking, rock-n-roll playing, anti-globalism, enviro-wacko?
Midwestern California values, I'd say.
673. RustlerPike - 5/11/2002 9:54:21 PM
I have no idea what this is about. I just know joe is right and the other guy's wrong.
Go joe!
674. Rama - 5/11/2002 9:55:05 PM
And as for Johnny B Free Lindh, if the US has a choice - either give him the full protections of US law to which he as a citizen is entitled or don't try him.
That isn't an either/or choice. He is being tried, with the full protection of US law.
And isn't he more the victim of a political prosecution than a participant in a criminal conspiracy to kill US citizens in the first instance?
No. There is probable cause to believe he was participating in an organization that planned to kill US citizens. It may be that he was not a party to the conspiracy of that group to accomplish that purpose. Since the prosecution has to prove that he was, beyond a reasonable doubt, a trial seems like a pretty good way to go.
675. joezan - 5/12/2002 9:19:14 AM
Pike:
I have no idea what this is about. I just know joe is right and the other guy's wrong.
It's about the mailbox bomber, Luke Helder - a college student in Minnesota who drove around the Midwest sticking pipe-bombs in people's mailboxes, leaving a cryptic, loony screed venting his anti-gov't, anti-capitalism, anti-globalism spleen.
Until his dad blew the whistle on him and he was captured in the middle of his cross-country bomb spree (the locations of his bombings when plotted on a map were to form a happy-face - nice, huh?), and despite all evidence to the contrary, lefties were trying to paint the bomber as some right-wing wacko, and to somehow connect him to the VRWC.
Now, we find out he was an extreme leftie, pot-smoking, enviro-wacko art student who played in a band called Apathy.
Then, we find that the assassin of the gay Dutch politician Fortuyn was also (GASP!) an extreme leftie envirowacko.
So the lefties are now in hyper-denial mode.
676. Andonly - 5/12/2002 9:53:39 AM
"the locations of his bombings when plotted on a map were to form a happy-face"
I'm telling you, it was performance art. The kid was an art student.
677. Andonly - 5/12/2002 9:55:27 AM
CalGal,
I don't know what good a website would do me. People have to have a reason to visit one, you know. Surely if there's interest, it will find its way to the Lights Out campaign via my email circulations. (And if there's not, it won't...)
678. Andonly - 5/12/2002 9:55:53 AM
Then again, marketing is not my strong suit.
679. wonkers2 - 5/12/2002 10:32:48 AM
Cap'n Dirty sez, "If'n all else fails, try a few nude shots or a web cam in your bedroom. You kin count on a few hits from the Cap'n."
680. jexster - 5/12/2002 10:45:43 AM
And THIS is the thanks our poor WarLord got from his goody buddy Moose-Sheriff?
Pakistan Says Piss Off to US Attacks on Al Qaeda
All that fayn limin payh and dem chimichangas...damned woggie
681. CalGal - 5/12/2002 10:54:42 AM
And--a web site would appear on google searches. It might get media attention. It would give you a common place to put your musings on the subject.
Besides, it's cheap and easy.
682. Andonly - 5/12/2002 5:46:25 PM
"a web site would appear on google searches."
Yeah, ten pages in.
"It might get media attention."
The media is attracted by noise, not ideas per se.
"It would give you a common place to put your musings on the subject."
I guess, but I don't have many musings to add. Maybe others might.
"Besides, it's cheap and easy."
But I have other things to do, at least for some time to come.
683. ronski - 5/13/2002 12:16:46 PM
Is Three Mile Island the Next World Trade Center?
684. ronski - 5/13/2002 12:22:35 PM
My guess is that Islamo-facists would be making a big mistake setting off belt bombs in the U.S.
What do others think?
685. Rama - 5/13/2002 12:33:15 PM
I agree with you.
686. Daniel Sickles - 5/13/2002 12:42:27 PM
As do I.
While many in the United States feel cozy enough to msuh mouth about Israel's natural response to barbaric acts, our response would make Sharon look like Martin Luther King.
687. concerned - 5/13/2002 12:43:51 PM
Re. 684 -
It certainly would be bad for certain 'ideas' and 'policies' that the Left holds dear, such as moral equivalence and unconstrained immigration.
688. concerned - 5/13/2002 12:51:32 PM
Any such terrorist acts on US soil would also increase the likelihood of the US to directly involve itself with the internal affairs of certain Mideast countries.
689. thoughtful - 5/13/2002 2:46:43 PM
Scary stuff from the NY Times' Kristof:
The War on Terror Flounders
"Standing in front of four 50-inch plasma television screens, Mr. Ridge hailed the super-classified capabilities of the SCIF (sensitive compartmented information facility). Unfortunately, while the television system allows simultaneous video conferencing with the White House Situation Room and the C.I.A., the huge plasma screens were devoted to television broadcasts. One of them was showing "Divorce Court."
"Mr. Ridge was so thrilled showing off his new command center ... that it felt churlish to question him. He insisted he was getting cooperation from other agencies to staff the desks marked with names like C.I.A. and D.I.A.; it would have been more plausible if the staplers and scissors on those empty desks had been taken out of their packing. "
690. ronski - 5/13/2002 2:54:23 PM
Schumer has proposed spending money on devices to detect radiation at all bridges and tunnels, and more importantly, at all ports where containers arrive, in order to stop a nuclear device or dirty conventional bomb from coming into a U.S. city. Sounds like a good idea to me.
691. jexster - 5/13/2002 5:28:31 PM
Indonesia Just Says NO to Bush's Terror Aid
692. Rama - 5/13/2002 6:10:45 PM
Sounds like a good idea to me.
I agree.
693. concerned - 5/13/2002 6:14:06 PM
Re. 690 -
Would this include scanning of items? I mention this because inadequate shielding can result in directional radiation sprays. IAC, it sounds like it can't hurt.
694. Rama - 5/13/2002 6:24:20 PM
Another view of combating the belt-bomb weapon system.
695. ronski - 5/13/2002 7:31:02 PM
Good link, Rama.
Of course jexster will be here to denounce it at any time now.
696. CalGal - 5/13/2002 7:42:18 PM
I don't know who we would respond to, if we ended up with suicide bombers here. But our tolerance for it would be very low. I think we would go for prevention first, and I think the call for getting Arabs and Muslims out of the country would be so strong as to be politically undeniable.
My guess is that they will go to Europe first, which will reliably provide a wishy washy response. But we should be ready for them.
I really wish we'd be more stringent on immigration. We are even now in an environment that makes it far too easy for terrorists to operate.
697. Andonly - 5/13/2002 8:09:21 PM
When intelligent people (like the Times editors) believe something so wildly wrong, it's usually because they're in the grip of a theory that helps them to ignore real-world evidence. In this case, the theory is that Palestinians resort to terrorism out of despair. The corollary to this theory is that all Israeli military action will inevitably backfire since it simply makes Palestinians more desperate and angry. For those who believe this—a group consisting of most liberal newspaper editors, the foreign policy establishment, and virtually the entire outside world—the case against Israeli military action (such as the recent one in the West Bank) is simply an a priori truth.
This fallacy also ignores history.
Chait is fucking dead-on. The "violence only breeds more violence" pabulum smacks of deranged Other Cheekism to me.
698. wonkers2 - 5/13/2002 8:39:25 PM
Israeli military action will backfire until they stop fucking the Palestinians. Why is that so hard for the Israelis to grasp? Their simplistic policy of retaliation seems to be begetting more violence, not less. It reminds me of the occupying Germans in Norway who shot an innocent citizen in the town square everytime there was an incident of sabotage. The sabotage didn't stop. It increased.
699. wonkers2 - 5/13/2002 8:43:37 PM
Israel is immolating itself, physically and morally along with the Palestinians.
700. CalGal - 5/13/2002 8:44:56 PM
Their simplistic policy of retaliation seems to be begetting more violence, not less.
But that isn't true. When they didn't retaliate, they suffered a great deal of violence. When they did retaliate, they were able to stop it.
701. wonkers2 - 5/13/2002 8:52:46 PM
No, they haven't been able to stop it. As I recall Hamas killed 15 just a few days ago. They may have slowed it down a bit. Of course they are capable of annihilating the Palestinians, but at what cost to themselves, the region and the world?
Just look at the history of South Africa under the apartheid. They tried and succeeded for a while to repress the black South Africans, but they ultimately failed for two reasons: the blacks continued to resist and world opinion finally condemned and embargoed the apartheid regime. The same thing drove the French out of
Algiers 30 years ago.
702. wonkers2 - 5/13/2002 8:54:01 PM
Retaliation when you are right is one thing but entirely another when you aren't.
703. wonkers2 - 5/13/2002 9:00:28 PM
A Fair Deal for the World
704. Rama - 5/13/2002 9:01:10 PM
Retaliation when you are right is one thing but entirely another when you aren't.
Oh, yeah. When you retaliate against really bad guys, like say the Nazis or the Mafia, they go "Oh, my, they have right on their side! We quit!"
Retaliation works when it destroys the opponent's abiltiy to wage war.
705. ronski - 5/13/2002 9:06:17 PM
I think we are talking about two different things here: short-range and long-range viewpoints.
Violence against Israel has increased since the early 90s when Pals mistook Israelis' growing desire for peace as weakness.
In the short run, Israel hitting the Pals hard has indeed curtailed that violence (only jexster could believe otherwise), hence Andonly's apt comment.
But in the long run, I think wonkers has a point. Unless Israel is prepared to engage in ethnic cleansing, or "transfer," it cannot have peace. It cannot rule over the West Bank Arabs indefinitely.
It is either a two-state solution, with international safeguards (and Israel's presumed right to smash the Pal state if it turns terrorist), or the Pals go to Jordan.
(Mind you, a new Palestinian state, composed of the Eastern part of the West Bank and northeast present-day Jordan might be an interesting idea. The Hashemites would get to keep most of their state this way, but wouldn't have to worry about the Pals they were not able to force out of the northern part of their country. Another fantasy of mine is placing the Hashemites back in Arabia, and getting rid once and for all of that unspeakably awful Saudi family.)
706. wonkers2 - 5/13/2002 9:14:17 PM
Retaliation can provide a disincentive to agression WITHOUT destroying an opponent's ability to wage war. However, even more important than retailiation is to have a policy of NOT REWARDING or caving in to whatever behavior you are trying to discourage. Power is an essential element of diplomacy. Without power and the belief by one's opponent that you are willing to use it if need be diplomacy can be an exercise in futility. Two elements are necessary (1) power and (2) a willingness to address real problems with fair and practical solutions. Israel has been relying on (1) and shirking on (2).
707. CalGal - 5/13/2002 9:15:00 PM
It cannot rule over the West Bank Arabs indefinitely.
I generally agree. But I think it's flawed to assume that giving the Palestinians what they say they want will accomplish much of anything.
Nonetheless, it's a good place to start.
708. CalGal - 5/13/2002 9:22:19 PM
Another fantasy of mine is placing the Hashemites back in Arabia, and getting rid once and for all of that unspeakably awful Saudi family
I don't see how you can say the Sauds are unspeakable. Like them or hate them, they are far more realistic and in tune with Western sympathies than their subjects. They are also a hell of a lot smarter.
The problem is that we never even considered demanding that they create a reasonable population, much less wonder how they could do it.
709. wonkers2 - 5/13/2002 9:29:31 PM
I once got to know the son of the finance minister of Saudi Arabia while he was in the states perfecting his English before college. His ambition was to go to Egypt, worship at the feet of Nasser, and return to Saudi Arabia and drive out the royal family. He had a solid gold Rolex with camels and palm trees on the face and an inscription from the king on the back. One time when he was short on money he hocked it to my roommate for $100 and returned to Saudi Arabia for summer vacation. Not long after that the Saudi Consul in NYC called to track down the watch and repaid the $100. We wondered if it ever found its way back to our young Saudi friend. He was headed for Ohio State last I heard.
710. ronski - 5/13/2002 9:44:33 PM
We have asked the Saudis to act like decent human beings for decades. All they have done is pretend to us that they are doing so.
711. ronski - 5/13/2002 9:45:14 PM
And it is a good place to start.
Trust, but verify.
712. CalGal - 5/13/2002 9:50:35 PM
We have asked the Saudis to act like decent human beings for decades.
I would question whether we've ever asked. Nonetheless, I said demand, which is a whole different ballgame.
But it's just silly to say that we've asked. They institute gender apartheid and we allow American women to live under those rules. Asked what, exactly?
713. wonkers2 - 5/13/2002 9:52:11 PM
Well, another place to start would be to accept the Saudi proposal to accept Israel and enforce an agreement on the Palestinians. Of course, that would require a similar action on our part toward Israel which we don't seem to have the resolve to do although we have the power to do it.
714. ronski - 5/13/2002 10:25:08 PM
We have asked, or expected, them not to foment hatred among their people of the West. Since the fundamentalist attempt at their overthrow, they have done the opposite. They are even more duplicitous than the Eygptians, who are almost as hideous.
715. ronski - 5/13/2002 10:27:09 PM
wonkers,
I am with you on that one.
716. ronski - 5/13/2002 10:40:57 PM
Ultimately, the Ronski Plan boils down to this, however:
1) Let Israel use whatever force necessary to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in WB&G.
2) Convene a meeting among Israel and the Arab states with Euro participation.
3) Create a Palestinian state with new leadership, with borders monitored by an international force that does not include Americans.
4) End aid to Israel if it does not cooperate; end aid to Egypt if it does not cooperate.
5) Withdraw U.S. forces from Saudi Arabia, building up the new base at Qatar.
6) Buy oil from the many people who are more than happy to sell it to us at market prices. (And as Scoop Jackson said, no alternative fuel will be developed until the last drop of oil is pulled from the ground, so stop dreaming, liberals-who-hate-the-internal-combustion- engine).
717. DocBrown - 5/13/2002 10:49:19 PM
I'm not sure ending aid to either of those parties would be in the U.S.'s best interest. When governments topple, the result is seldom friendly to the causes of Democracy and Free Trade.
718. CalGal - 5/13/2002 11:01:33 PM
We have asked, or expected, them not to foment hatred among their people of the West.
They don't foment it. They make payoffs to those who foment it. And in the scheme of things, that's futile and only demonstrates how little we expect. Far better to require that they develop people who are too busy being good little capitalist consumers to hate.
719. PelleNilsson - 5/14/2002 12:53:29 AM
ronski
The Hashemites would get to keep most of their state this way, but wouldn't have to worry about the Pals they were not able to force out of the northern part of their country
??????
There is no Palestinian enclave or anything like that in northern Jordan. And Hussein didn't force the Palestinians out. He forced the so called Palestinian army out.
720. rubberducky - 5/14/2002 9:25:33 AM
i thought this was sweet:
Hollywood action hero BRUCE WILLIS has made his sweetest gesture to date - by buying 12,000 boxes of cookies from his daughter for troops in Afghanistan.
The DIE HARD star made the colossal purchase from proud Brownie eight-year-old TALLULAH's Girl Scout troop in Hailey, Idaho, at $3 a box.
Her troop leader SUE DUMKE says, "I would think this is the largest order from one child ever."
The Scouts had to reopen their cookie factory - which is usually open for only about two months a year - to accommodate the order. The troop will net $5,000 from the sale; Tallulah will receive a merit badge for her Brownie vest as a reward, while her dad will get a "thank-you card with pictures and little notes" from the troop, says Dumke.
sappy, but sweet 721. ronski - 5/14/2002 3:51:56 PM
Pelle,
Jordan, I believe, has 13 refugee camps, 10 under the supervision of UNRWA. Most of the camps are in the Northwest. And 35% of the population of the country is of Palestinian origin, maybe more.
Palestinians in Jordan
722. Rama - 5/14/2002 3:56:36 PM
There is no Palestinian enclave or anything like that in northern Jordan. And Hussein didn't force the Palestinians out. He forced the so called Palestinian army out.
That is a fascinating alternative reality you live in Nilsson.
723. ronski - 5/14/2002 4:08:26 PM
Doc,
Certainly a good point to make. But I lean toward the belief that we in the West cannot purge Islamic societies of their flirtation with fundamentalism.
Places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia may simply have to go through the same process Iran has, embracing the crazies only to teach the majority of the population that the Islamofascists mean ruination and that they have to be removed from power (as they are slowly doing in Iran).
These societies may need to learn the same lessons the West did through its religious wars, that clerics should not run countries.
724. Andonly - 5/14/2002 4:25:33 PM
"Unless Israel is prepared to engage in ethnic cleansing, or "transfer," it cannot have peace. It cannot rule over the West Bank Arabs indefinitely."
This is correct. But here is why: Arabs will oppose it; Americans and Europeans will object to it; and three quarters of Israelis not only don't want it, they shouldn't if they mean to maintain a democratic Jewish state.
Jexster and Wonkers seem to believe that Israel ruling over the WB and Gaza Pals indefinitely would be immoral. I disagree; what is immoral is ruling over them without providing them ordinary legal protections and voting rights and democratic representation and so on. Israel is guilty of that immorality already. So is the Palestinian leadership. Arguably, if the world would accept Israeli annexation of the territories, Palestinians might ultimately be better off.
725. Andonly - 5/14/2002 4:25:56 PM
The world has other ideas, though. Still, the fact that Arab states, Europe, and the US object to Israel ruling over the Pals indefinitely is not the reason Israel should get out of the WB and Gaza. The fact that the PLO wants to have a fiefdom in the region is not the reason Israel should get out. Terrorism is certainly not the reason Israel should end the occupation.
The reason Israel should cease its occupation of the territories is that it is not prepared to provide adequately for the people living there, or serve their interests, or treat them as part of the Jewish nation. Maybe it should be, but it isn't.
Nevertheless, the security of that nation requires that whoever does govern the territories maintain control over irredentists. Thus the part of Sharon's plan which calls for dismantling and remaking the Palestinian Authority is reasonable. Unfortunately, it can't be recognized as such because he has not couched it in an offer of Israeli withdrawal and immediate moves toward establishing statehood.
He may, possibly, be right (from a security standpoint) not to accede to statehood before the Pals have an accountable government, but a) Israel will get no support from anyone for that stance, and b) Sharon sure ain't offering the Pals Israeli citizenship. I get the sense that there can be no real move away from gangsterism in the territories until the Pals have a state accountable in all the usual ways.
726. ronski - 5/14/2002 4:36:34 PM
Andonly,
I agree. And this is why I reject the notion -- popular with many American conservatives -- that we cannot permit a Palestinian state "because we will be creating a terrorist state," an argument Rush Limbaugh was making in incessantly played promos for his talk show last week.
727. wonkers2 - 5/14/2002 6:17:13 PM
"Palestinians might ulitmately be better off."
I doubt they agree.
728. Andonly - 5/14/2002 7:36:42 PM
"I doubt they agree."
The median age among Palestinians is 16. I don't generally care what 16 year olds think is the best solution to an international dispute.
And since Palestinian moderates can't speak freely, one wonders how it can be possible to determine what Pals might want overall. But in any event, I suspect you're wrong: Pals abroad and Arabs generally have long voiced the possibliiy of accepting a one-state solution, assuming they were made full citizens of that state with rights equivalent to Jews. This would, of course, give them everything they want, including repossessing Israel in a couple of generations.
729. Andonly - 5/14/2002 7:41:37 PM
"I reject the notion -- popular with many American conservatives -- that we cannot permit a Palestinian state "because we will be creating a terrorist state,""
Me too. Because it may be that terrorist states are easier to control than terrorist state-like entities that receive all sorts of unsupervised foreign aid.
The real issue is whether surrounding Arab states can be trusted to refrain from using "Palestine" as a wedge against Israel. I don't think they can. That's where US military pressure comes in, and now that we've demostrated we'll use it in Afghanistan, and that we are firmly committed to Israel and will give it a free hand as necessary, it should be clear to all that we won't turn a blind eye.
730. wonkers2 - 5/14/2002 8:59:04 PM
"The real issue for the ISRAELIS is whether the Arab states can be trusted."
I wonder what the "real issues" for the Palestinians are. Or aren't they allowed to have "real issues?" Don't you think there may also be some trust issues on their side involving the Israelis?
731. Andonly - 5/14/2002 9:29:27 PM
"Don't you think there may also be some trust issues on their side involving the Israelis?"
Like what? That they would invade nascent Palestine and try to drive the Arab inhabitants into Jordan? Use squads of Jewish suicide bombers as proxies for a covert war to reclaim Judaea and Samaria? Gas the Pals, poison their wells?
I'm fairly sure that once a Pal state is established, if it does not seek to undermine Israel through terror it will face nothing more hideous than water fights and economic strangulation, both of which could be addressed politically and diplomatically.
I say "could" because some Pals have this habit since Oslo began of relying on bloodletting over less cathartic political wrangling.
732. jexster - 5/14/2002 10:44:25 PM
Tr-ashcroft Justice Dept Knew About OBL 9-1-1 Plans, Failed to Act
733. jexster - 5/14/2002 10:48:06 PM
Poor Johnny Walker ... scapegoat for Trashcroft incompetence
734. ronski - 5/14/2002 10:55:23 PM
I hope I can get to sleep tonight.
It may be difficult, seeing as I will be continuously laughing at jexster's idiotic suggestion that Democrat government hacks would have taken islamofascist threats more seriously than GOP government hacks did.
735. ronski - 5/14/2002 11:04:06 PM
Andonly, otoh, speaks with wisdom.
By the way, is there any way to rid the Mote of jexster's crackpottery?
Or will it be the death of this enterprise? So many have already left because of their reluctance to address his manic illness (an understandable reaction, seeing as trained professionals are best suited to deal with that sort of thing).
736. PelleNilsson - 5/15/2002 12:52:59 AM
Rama
I know something about Jordan, having lived there for six years.
Jordan has 5 million people. At least 80% of them live in the north-west, the area ronski thinks could be part of a Palestinian state. The rest of the country is largely desert and semi-desert.
There are 2-3 million Palestinians in Jordan of which 300,000 live in camps, the majority in the vicinity of Amman.
737. wonkers2 - 5/15/2002 7:44:18 AM
Like what?
Like distrust over the theft of their land by Israeli settlers and questions over intentions for the settlements in the future. Like your posts that drip with contempt for the Palestinians.
738. wonkers2 - 5/15/2002 7:45:01 AM
Ninety-nine percent of whom aren't suicide bombers.
739. Andonly - 5/15/2002 9:08:29 AM
Wonkers, you mistake my contempt for your silly remarks for contempt for Palestinians. I only have unbridled, unmitigated contempt for their leader (and the leaders of Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, half of Iran, and on alternating days, Egypt).
In a Palestinian state, the settlements would be up to Palestinians to dispense with. So the issue you raise is moot.
740. Andonly - 5/15/2002 9:14:29 AM
I should amend my Message # 729, since no one challenged my last sentence: It should be clear to all that for as long as American foreign policy remains on the track this administration has set it on, the US would not turn a blind eye to a Pal state being used as a wedge by other states. That might not be very reassuring to Israelis, though.
741. Andonly - 5/15/2002 9:53:32 AM
Obviously, the following joke doesn't quite align with my politics, but it's pretty funny anyway:
"Mike Tyson tells his women that he'll fuck them until they love him. Sharon, in his own way, is teling the Palestinians the same thing."
742. wonkers2 - 5/15/2002 4:11:31 PM
Ha!Ha! Not bad!
743. wonkers2 - 5/15/2002 4:13:50 PM
The remarks I had in mind were not in response to anything I posted. Speaking of silliness, yours that a majority of PAL adults would support a one state solution takes the cake.
744. wonkers2 - 5/15/2002 10:48:27 PM
I don't claim to be well informed on Palestine. But I don't think of myself as silly.
745. CalGal - 5/16/2002 2:19:41 AM
Bush Was Warned bin Laden Wanted to Hijack Planes
The upsetting thing about this isn't that Bush somehow should have known. What really gets me is that we had a guy in custody who had been in the country illegally, paying large amounts of cash to learn how to fly widebody planes without concern for landing them, and we knew that bin Laden was planning on hijacking planes.
Why was it, exactly, we couldn't put it all together?
746. concerned - 5/16/2002 2:54:57 AM
The date & the specific flights chosen, off the top of my head. CalGal, do you have any idea how many thousands of commercial airliner flights there are in the US each week? How would the GWB Administration have justified a nationwide security crackdown on these flights for an indefinite period of time without some precipitating factor, considering the diminished US security resources that were inherited from the administration you voted for twice? Can you say 'profiling'? I knew you could.
747. concerned - 5/16/2002 2:58:45 AM
I believe that all of the terrorists on the ill fated flights of 9/11 were in this country legally.
748. concerned - 5/16/2002 3:20:36 AM
I get the sense that there can be no real move away from gangsterism in the territories until the Pals have a state accountable in all the usual ways.
As one requirement, any organization which purports to represent the Pals should be subjected to an a priori requirement to commit itself to creating an infrastructure suitable for such a state, and provide the particulars of just how they plan to do so before serious negotiations can be contemplated. Any resulting agreements granting such a state continued sovereignty should be conditioned on the Pal government making progress in implementing same in a timely manner.
This possibility, however, should not be taken as an excuse to once again attempt to wheedle a conciliatory attitude out of the Pals a la Oslo instead of working to resolve the short and medium term conflicts which do exist.
749. concerned - 5/16/2002 3:26:42 AM
I must comment on how ronski is coming right out and stating what I was hinting at a few weeks ago in the Israel and Palestine thread, but very few of the the more Left wing motiers appear to have the guts to say 'boo' to him, while I was subjected to particularly vile abuse by one pompous lefty moron.
750. OhioSTOPAS - 5/16/2002 6:37:34 AM
"Why was it, exactly, we couldn't put it all together?"
Maybe a stupid fish is stupid from the head down.
Damn it! We were so close to preventing this.
752. thoughtful - 5/16/2002 9:48:57 AM
Did it take all that much imagination? Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris of Columbine fame were aid to have talked about much the same thing...
Columbine diary
753. thoughtful - 5/16/2002 9:49:21 AM
said, not aid
754. thoughtful - 5/16/2002 11:04:50 AM
The worst part is, if we received such a warning today, there would be little we could do about it...security at airports is still woefully inadequate, evidence abounds that the INS is in far over its head in keeping up with documentation, and Tom Ridge's command center hasn't even bothered to unwrap its staplers yet. Don't even think about how many containers are shipped into this country every day...and how many are inspected.
755. thoughtful - 5/16/2002 2:06:06 PM
From cnn: "Yet another official familiar with the intelligence reports at the time said a potential hijacking was mentioned as one "in a range of things that might be done" and said there was no specific threat upon which the government could have acted. "
That's utter BS. How many of us have locks on our doors because we have received a specific threat of burglary? How many towns in the US don't bother with a police force because they haven't received a "specific threat" of criminal activity. How many of us wait until we have a "specific threat" of fire before we get fire insurance.
756. zojak quafeth - 5/16/2002 3:29:07 PM
That's utter BS. How many of us have locks on our doors because we have received a specific threat of burglary? How many towns in the US don't bother with a police force because they haven't received a "specific threat" of criminal activity. How many of us wait until we have a "specific threat" of fire before we get fire insurance.
To borrow a phrase that's utter BS. How many of us post family watches throughout the night at our own homes without a specific threat of burglary? How many towns in the US post surveillance cameras and police officers at a specific gas station, let's say 3rd and Main without a specific threat of criminal activity there? How many of us buy a fire truck and hook it up to the fire hydrant in front of our homes without a specific threat of a fire?
757. thoughtful - 5/16/2002 4:04:00 PM
zq, undone by your own example...many convenience stores, gas stations, etc. have no cash boxes, install security cameras, have police make frequent checks, etc. precisely because there is a higher risk of criminal activity at these locations...and they do it without "specific threat".
But as I said earlier, it's all ridiculous because we have had 9/11, have had credible and specific threats against the US and the response has been to issue approval notices for Mohammed Atta's visa, strip US citizens of their nail clippers at airports, and to offer color codes for levels of alert with no explanation as to what we are supposed to do about it. Perhaps it's all for the good though...we probably have a lot fewer air passengers wearing holey socks in case that have to remove their shoes.
758. thoughtful - 5/16/2002 4:05:36 PM
they, not that
759. CalGal - 5/16/2002 4:33:01 PM
evidence abounds that the INS is in far over its head in keeping up with documentation,
Hell, as of right now they aren't even processing applications at all--the new computer system has them flummoxed.
Concerned, several of the terrorists weren't in the country legally, and several more had lied to get in on their visas (on business indeed).
As for knowing the specific dates and flights--don't be silly. For starters, they could have told airlines that "official airline policy" was now changed on hijacking, that pilots are not under any condition to allow anyone to take over the plane, even if it means hurting other passengers. They could also have been informed that they had to call the cops if anyone tried to buy a one-way ticket. They could have diverted border agents to tracking down illegal Arab aliens.
All sorts of wudda cudda shudda opportunities.
760. OhioSTOPAS - 5/16/2002 4:54:42 PM
Remember President Bush's public recounting, in a couple of appearances in December, of how he first learned of the World Trade Center attack? (One report is here.) The President said he saw the first plane hit Tower 1:
"I saw an airplane hit the tower - the TV was obviously on - and I used to fly myself, and I said, 'There's one terrible pilot.' And I said, 'It must have been a horrible accident.'"
Of course, he could not have possibly seen the first plane hit on live TV. While some conspiracy-mongers point to this as evidence of prior knowledge, I am 100% sure that the President
just confused events - told about it on 9/11, saw film of it later - in his little brain.
But (as a poster on Table Talk pointed out today) this account is peculiar in another respect. Having been briefed that terrorists were plotting skyjackings just a few weeks ago, was his first thought upon hearing that a plane struck a skyscraper really that it was an ACCIDENT? Either the President is being dishonest when he says this was his first thought, or he failed to make the obvious connection with his limited cognitive ability. (My odds: pick'em).
761. Daniel Sickles - 5/16/2002 5:00:53 PM
I think what is important to draw from these revelations is that Cynthia McKinney was vindicated. She is due an apology and perhaps a leadership position.
My advice to the DNC is simple, much like our dunderhead moron of a president: follow the money.
762. concerned - 5/16/2002 5:01:07 PM
There's nothing in the GWB quote that Ohio cites that implies that he believed that he was seeing a live transmission of the initial WTC terrorist incident.
763. Daniel Sickles - 5/16/2002 5:03:33 PM
concerned
Puhllleeease.
It is clear he knew beforehand. So, either criminal negligence or premeditated murder. (My odds: pick'em).
764. concerned - 5/16/2002 5:05:10 PM
Oh, okay. I'll go way out in Left Field and choose 'premeditated murder'.
765. Daniel Sickles - 5/16/2002 5:06:09 PM
You hit the daily double for our dunderhead doofus of a dweeby delegator-in-chief.
766. jexster - 5/16/2002 5:09:21 PM
Il Doofus "hit the trifecta" on a phony pari-mutuel ticket and didn't want anyone to find out.
767. Daniel Sickles - 5/16/2002 5:09:39 PM
Rice - Steps Were Taken
Yea, I bet. Step n' Fetch Its Were Taken is more like it!
768. OhioSTOPAS - 5/16/2002 5:10:52 PM
"There's nothing in the GWB quote that Ohio cites that implies that he believed that he was seeing a live transmission of the initial WTC terrorist incident."
Oh, Connie. Please.
769. thoughtful - 5/16/2002 5:11:06 PM
Most worrisome to me about the admin's handling of this event was that even after 9/11, not the FAA, nor any of the other federal three-letter-acronym agencies offered any specifics about what should be done in case of a repeat event. It was an airline pilot with the courage to speak up who advised the passengers on his plane what to do in case something should happen...something that fortunately made its way into e-mails and cyberspace and was repeated often enough that lives were subsequently saved by passengers uniting against wackos on their flights and subduing them until authorities could be brought on board.
8 months have passed since 9/11. 8 months during which time security measures could have been significantly improved, guidelines could have been issued, procedures put in place, recommendations made public, etc. But no substantive improvements in security have been made. Instead, we can only point to is increased threats to our civil liberties perpetrated by our own government.
This lack of action falls squarely on the shoulders of this administration. They are in charge. They are responsible. They have so far been ineffective.
We are waiting.
770. CalGal - 5/16/2002 5:11:34 PM
Enough. If you want to bitch about politics, I'm sure there's a thread for it.
I think it's quite possible that Bush thought it was an accident, and I think denial is the most likely reason. If anyone had really thought it was important, they would have done somethign about it. I doubt Clinton would have done any differently. We've taken terrorism very lightly for a long time. Had the White House ordered any stringent procedures, the people would undoubtedly have bitched about it.
771. Daniel Sickles - 5/16/2002 5:12:01 PM
jexster
Dead-on, as usual. The Pretender-in-Chief had some investments in smallpox vaccine. Bank it.
Just you wait and see. There have been some fascinating posts on just this point in Table Talk, and when this all shakes out, I think we'll see that the Clown Prince of Dorkness is having his strings pulled by Poppy Jalopy!
Apologize to McKinney!
772. CalGal - 5/16/2002 5:13:33 PM
This lack of action falls squarely on the shoulders of this administration. They are in charge. They are responsible. They have so far been ineffective.
I agree they have been ineffective. I can't think what procedures they could recommend or order that wouldn't cause everyone to squawk.
773. uzmakk - 5/16/2002 5:19:21 PM
oh cal, hae sex with me. Thanx betty.
774. concerned - 5/16/2002 5:28:28 PM
Re. 768 -
'Please' yourself, Ohio. Loony Left conspiracy constructs regarding 9/11 which everybody knows are based on nothing but innuendo and baseless inference don't deserve serious consideration.
775. OhioSTOPAS - 5/16/2002 5:39:09 PM
Don't misquote me, Connie. I do not subscribe to conspiracy theories regarding the President's plainly impossible account of the events of the morning of September 11.
I just think he's stupid.
776. Daniel Sickles - 5/16/2002 5:41:13 PM
You think?
If you have to think about something so obvious, maybe you're the one who is stupid, pal.
Bush isn't just stupid.
He's stooooooooooopid!.
777. OhioSTOPAS - 5/16/2002 5:41:31 PM
President Bush even gave this account a second time. (Why didn't his staff tell him when he made this howler the first time?) In a public question and answer session in January:
". . . when we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on. And you know, I thought it was pilot error and I was amazed that anybody could make such a terrible mistake."
778. Daniel Sickles - 5/16/2002 5:42:50 PM
Good work, Ohio.
Take that connie.
Where is your Bastard Pretender NOW!!!!!
779. concerned - 5/16/2002 6:09:47 PM
Here's a still of the first plane hitting the WTC. Is it the contention among Lefties that no photographic or film representation of this was broadcast before the second plane hit? If so, and they can't back it up, I'd say they're so full of shit that's it's squirting out their ears, Ohio.
780. concerned - 5/16/2002 6:44:52 PM
Perhaps GWB misspoke slightly in that what he saw was a photo taken seconds after the first plane impacted the WTC tower on TV. But how can one be so censurious about his assertions of what he saw if one doesn't even know precisely what was broadcast at the time?
781. CalGal - 5/16/2002 7:25:01 PM
I will move all this garbage to the Inferno if it doesn't stop.
What Bush Knew Before Sept. 11
Fleischer's comments followed the New York Times report that an agent at the FBI's Arizona office last July sent a memo to FBI headquarters warning that there were a large number of Arabs seeking pilot, security and airport operations training. The memo pointed to those statistics at one flight school and urged a check of all U.S. flight schools to identify any other students from the Middle East.
From a CBS News story last July 26:
Ashcroft Flying High
In response to inquiries from CBS News over why Ashcroft was traveling exclusively by leased jet aircraft instead of commercial airlines, the Justice Department cited what it called a "threat assessment" by the FBI, and said Ashcroft has been advised to travel only by private jet for the remainder of his term.
"There was a threat assessment and there are guidelines. He is acting under the guidelines," an FBI spokesman said. Neither the FBI nor the Justice Department, however, would identify what the threat was, when it was detected or who made it.
So how much is required to connect the dots? I wonder if any Cabinet official flew commercial after July?
782. CalGal - 5/16/2002 7:34:51 PM
Ashcroft travel assessment unrelated to terrorism
Hadn't seen this or I would have posted it. Still, I wonder how many Cabinet officials flew commercial after July?
783. Rama - 5/16/2002 8:04:34 PM
All but four.
784. CalGal - 5/16/2002 8:08:14 PM
Good, someone has checked. I would have been pissed if they'd all been flying private but hadn't bothered to actually think through the information they had.
At this point, I think it's pretty absurd for them to declare that they had no idea that this would happen. More accurately, they had all the information they needed to take precautions, they just didn't bother to think it through and didn't want to pay the price of public discontent.
785. Daniel Sickles - 5/16/2002 8:09:45 PM
The negligence is astounding. A credible threat prior to the attack, in a daily briefing, and yet, what was done? Apparently, nothing. No warning was given, no heightened security was ordered, no clamp down on the dissemination of box-cutters. The blood of those people is on the hands of this adminstration.
And meanwhile, Ashcroft is taking precautions to protect his own Second Amendment loving behind.
Astonishing.
786. Rama - 5/16/2002 8:10:57 PM
Assuming they knew that Osama and co. were planning to highjack an airplane and fly it into building, what do you think they could have done about it?
787. Rama - 5/16/2002 8:12:35 PM
no clamp down on the dissemination of box-cutters
Oh. Sorry, I hadn't thought of that. Of course that's what they should have done.
788. CalGal - 5/16/2002 8:16:19 PM
The blood of those people is on the hands of this adminstration.
Hardly. You spend too much time playing on Jex's level; it may surprise you to realize that some people don't always think like a hack. In any event, why not respond to what I actually wrote, rather than make up arguments?
But I suppose I should be grateful I didn't get an "Awesome!"
789. Daniel Sickles - 5/16/2002 8:17:48 PM
Rama
Don't give me your ass-covering rationales for this treachery. Cynthia McKinney and jexster were right and you and your ilk were wrong.
How about - after the box cutters - clamping down immediately on Arab-looking types, issuing an alert that there may be a hijacking, somewhere at some time, and immediately firing all those unfortunate screeners. Memos could have been sent. Things could have been done.
For example, post-September 11th, there have been several alerts, and people have been very happy with that system.
You just can't accept that your BOY President failed us all.
790. Daniel Sickles - 5/16/2002 8:18:57 PM
Cal
Jexster was right!
791. CalGal - 5/16/2002 8:24:38 PM
Assuming they knew that Osama and co. were planning to highjack an airplane and fly it into building, what do you think they could have done about it?
I wasn't assuming that. It appears that some people did, in fact, connect the dots--at least one FBI agent suggested that they might want to fly an airplane into the WTC.
So what I would have liked, ideally, is for that to have been taken seriously. Which it clearly wasn't. Then, I would have liked them to think that through.
What was official airline hijack policy? Cooperation. Would that be the desired response, in the event that the hijackers were planning on killing all the passengers and then some? No.
So, for starters, they could tell airlines that official hijack policy had changed, that if there was any attempt to hijack a plane the immediate response would be to block the cockpit and do whatever it took to disable the terrorists, even if other passengers were hurt. Obviously, this would get airlines upset. Which is probably why they didn't do it--assuming they got that far in the process.
They could also have done whatever it took to identify any illegal aliens from Middle east countries, or at least ensured that the ones with a tourist visa had left the country, or that they knew where they were.
And, of course, they could have told airlines that in the event an Arab bought a one-way ticket with cash, the first step would be to call the FBI and stall until they got there.
Yes, I realize that all of these actions would have been the source of a great deal of public crankiness. But if they'd tried, or at least considered the possibility, it would demonstrate that they'd connected the dots and came up with a reasonable response. That it was then rejected for political reasons is an action I could more readily understand.
792. CalGal - 5/16/2002 8:25:42 PM
Daniel, I'm asking you politely to stop. I'll move the next asinine post you make. They have a Politics thread if you want to be a hack.
793. Daniel Sickles - 5/16/2002 8:33:46 PM
Even though the WTC terrorists bought round-trip tickets with credit cards, and even though the briefing to the President spoke of a hijacking as opposed to a airline-as-missile, and even though an immediate crackdown on individuals of one national origin based on one complaint could be seen as extreme given that I've heard it argued that racial profiling is entirely useless, Cal is otherwise dead-on - the BOY President could have thought it through, but it is absolutely, unmistakeably clear that he didn't want to take the political heat (franky, incontrovertible) and so he punted.
Blood. Meet hands.
794. Daniel Sickles - 5/16/2002 8:34:29 PM
Cal
I can't help it. I agree with you.
795. CalGal - 5/16/2002 8:43:54 PM
Have I mentioned the President?
796. Daniel Sickles - 5/16/2002 8:46:36 PM
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
I suppose not.
Adios.
797. CalGal - 5/16/2002 8:50:54 PM
Once you read back and presumably realize oops! no, she didn't, maybe you'll focus on the actual nature of my disappointment. Or maybe not. But what the fuck, I can pretend.
Anyway, no. I didn't expect the President to figure it out. That's because I'm not upset at the President. I'm more upset at the process, primarily that of the FBI and the CIA.
I am heartened by the fact that an FBI agent did anticipate the possibility of planes being used as missiles. I am disappointed that it didn't go further. I think that the FBI had the information it needed to connect the dots, and it didn't. I think that had they connected the dots, there were specific recommendations that they could have made--recommendations that probably would then have been rejected for political reasons (by any administration).
As for the uselessness of racial profiling, I was talking about general policy. Given specific information, I absolutely think it is appropriate to monitor for specific people, particularly in regards to the INS. I thought that some of the terrorists bought one-way tickets--but even if they hadn't, it would have been a good precaution.
The most important step would have been airline policy, though.
798. Cellar Door - 5/16/2002 8:55:11 PM
What did Karen Hughes know, when did she know it, and when was it decided that she should take more of an interest in her son's Little League career?
799. ronski - 5/16/2002 10:12:28 PM
Have people forgotten that an official U.S. government manual on how to fight terrorism issued well before 9/11 had on its freakin' cover an illustration of a plane crashing into twin tower skyscrapers? And that the publication was immediately reissued with a different cover after 9/11? (I've seen the original; it exists).
And have people forgotten that the plot for hijacking planes from Manila on New Year's Eve 1999-2000 (that was foiled thanks to Jordanian intelligence) intended to crash the aircraft directly into the terminal buildings at LAX?
So, it is absolutely absurd to try to absolve government from any culpability in this matter: It is absurd to suggest that "We were only expecting a traditional hijacking." People in our government knew damn well, or should have known, that planes could be used as flying bombs, and would be, somewhere. And that the WTC was a very likely target, seeing as it was bombed in 1993 and one of the conspirators said he would have taken the buildings down if had had more time to plan the attack.
Is this to pin the blame on Bush? Not really. And certainly not entirely. No more than holding Clinton responsible for telling the Sudanese that they could keep bin Laden and we really couldn't come up with anything to charge him with.
While the buck should stop at the White House, the real breakdown is with U.S. intelligence, which fails to red flag the really important stuff to the commander-in-chief. Did the CIA or FBI insist that Bush focus on the pre-9/11 report? Subordinates are supposed to do that. We don't know if they did or not, but they most likely didn't. (We do know that Carter was specifically warned not to let the Shah into the U.S. by his own advisors but he did so any way; so we can hold Carter responsible for that mess.)
It also shows how generally inept government is, regardless of who is running it.
800. OhioSTOPAS - 5/16/2002 10:28:40 PM
concerned (Message # 779): No, that well-known picture is a still from film taken that morning and not broadcast until at least that evening.
But if you say the cameraman ran 60 blocks up to Rockefeller Center and gave it to Katie Couric to put on the air 5 minutes after it happened, I guess I can't PROVE you wrong.
801. Wombat - 5/17/2002 9:15:09 AM
I trust the Democrats will call for and conduct an investigation of what the President may or may not have been informed of concerning threats before 9/11 with the same level of restraint that the Republicans exhibited against his predecessor in the office.
Speaking of connecting the dots...Bin Laden's previous attacks against US targets all had one thing in common: they were suicide attacks. Knowledge of a Bin Laden threat to hijack airliners + propensity for suicide attacks = ....hello, anybody there?
802. CalGal - 5/17/2002 9:21:32 AM
It's simpler than that, actually.
1) Bombing WTC.
2) Hijack attempt, terrorist told pilot to fly the plane into the WTC, pilot refused.
3) Terrorists now going to flight school, focusing on widebodies, not giving a damn about takeoff and landing.
And someone did put it all together. So why didn't the FBI take it seriously?
803. Wombat - 5/17/2002 9:30:04 AM
Cal:
When did #2 take place?
804. CalGal - 5/17/2002 9:38:55 AM
Bush was told hijack threat was based on 1998 British data
So in summer 2001, they had Zacarias Moussaoui, they had an agent memo talking about the number of terrorists taking flight training, and they say that the threat came from 3 year old data?
805. wonkers2 - 5/17/2002 9:43:32 AM
Bush hadn't better make the same mistake as the Cardinals, covering up for incompetents in the FBI, Pentagon, NSA and CIA and on his own staff, perhaps.
806. Daniel Sickles - 5/17/2002 9:44:41 AM
Even though this statement is false - Bin Laden's previous attacks against US targets all had one thing in common: they were suicide attacks (the WTC bombing was by timer to detonate a 1,500-pound urea-nitrate bomb), the Monday Morning quarterbacking is EXACTLY the route the Democrats should take, with a healthy dollop of Watergate-style "What did he know and when did he know it?" rhetoric.
807. Daniel Sickles - 5/17/2002 9:46:41 AM
Cal
Finally. You properly get around to fingering the president.
808. CalGal - 5/17/2002 9:53:05 AM
Daniel,
Would that be when I said, "So why didn't the FBI take it seriously?" Or when I link in an article saying that the President was given ancient data by the FBI? or when I say that I wasn't upset at the President?
Wombat,
I'm trying to find the description of that; I don't think I've read of it since 9/11. I'll have to go through the original terrorism thread. If I hallucinated it I promise I'll tell you.
809. Rama - 5/17/2002 10:01:06 AM
Don't give me your ass-covering rationales for this treacheryM
The scales have fallen from my eyes! I now know that memos should have been sent!
810. Cellar Door - 5/17/2002 10:07:34 AM
"I don't think the American people should stop their holiday activities. I think they ought to go on and enjoy the season. But because we, the government, are taking extra steps and we're on alert, I think it would be good for them and good for us if they would just be careful and - not suspicious, but aware -aware of their circumstances, and if they see anything that doesn't look right, to report it to us. And if they do that, I think we'll have a good holiday and I think we'll maximize our safety"
- President Clinton (12/99)
811. Cellar Door - 5/17/2002 10:08:29 AM
toys
812. Daniel Sickles - 5/17/2002 10:08:44 AM
Cal
I'm funning. I appreciate the link and you have not impugned the president.
That said, I advise the Democrats to impugn him with abandon. This issue actually dovetails nicely into what I perceive to be a philosophical divide in this country: those who hunger for recrimination, blame, and advantage during crisis, and those who recognize the complexities and difficulties of managing a nation in which much that is awful cannot be prevented. The mainstream Democrats appear to be running a Columbine playbook, much as some crank Republicans ran a similar playbook pre-9/11 by charging "Wag the Dog" on cruise missiles to Sudan (it was stupid, but it wasn't a feint) and post-9/11, fingering Clinton for alleged mal and misfeasance to get their last kicks in).
It is a uniquely American strain of populism that fault must be assigned because everything - and I mean EVERYTHING - can be prevented.
And if not, well, someone has to pay.
This story is a creation, and fortunately, it looks like the Democrats intend to take it the distance (Gephardt's "What did the Presdient know and what did he know it?" line is precious), which will elicit a similarly disingenuous response of lack of patriotism from the GOP, and further pollute the discourse.
I think the clash of disengenuity will benefit the GOP.
813. CalGal - 5/17/2002 10:24:42 AM
Daniel,
I apologize for taking so long to respond to your "Blame Bush" requirement--so long that you were finally forced to fake it.
I think "blame" is stupid, and I honestly don't hold the administration responsible, given the paucity of information given them.
It's not a matter of what Bush knew and when he knew it, but why was the FBI not giving him relevant information? Why wasn't he told about the memo, and the arrest of Moussaoui?
Here's an answer I do want from the administration: why the insistence early on that there should be no investigation, when it seems pretty obvious that it is in the interest of all of us to find out why the hell the FBI was so slow to react to the potential of a threat, and why didn't they tell the President?
I think that's what stinks of coverup, even if everyone is focusing on the wrong thing. I do think an investigation is needed, though.
I also disagree with you that nothing could have been done. I doubt anyone would have done anything, but I believe with the info they had prior to 9/11 the FBI could have been frantically warning the President about the need to alert airlines to a specific sort of hijack threat, and that the compliance policy was a bad idea.
814. Daniel Sickles - 5/17/2002 10:31:43 AM
Cal
What stinks of a cover-up is the arched brow of Frank Sesno and little more.
I'd like to see links on a) airline compliance policy; b) your claim that there was a pre-9/11 Hijack attempt, terrorist told pilot to fly the plane into the WTC, pilot refused; and, c) your claim that the administration insisted early on that there should be no investigation
The facts are scarce now, and there have been a great many factual inaccuracies forwarded in this discussion.
I think we should all be vigilant about our facts and I'd be interested to see your support.
815. Rama - 5/17/2002 10:35:24 AM
Here's an answer I do want from the administration: why the insistence early on that there should be no investigation, when it seems pretty obvious that it is in the interest of all of us to find out why the hell the FBI was so slow to react to the potential of a threat, and why didn't they tell the President?
The public had no idea how the intelligence process works, and has no basis for evaluating what the correct processes are. And to educate them would require us to present so much information on how this is actually done that it would take decades to recover. To the degree this is a situation that can be improved, it is a matter for specialists, not the public.
Additionally, Osama was counting on America blaming itself for the attacks. And there was a lot of that. But he miscalculated how much he would be blamed.
Arafat has been much better at guessing how blame would be allocated for the suicide bombers in Isreal. Fortunately for us, he is also smart enough not to mess with the US directly.
816. Daniel Sickles - 5/17/2002 10:39:34 AM
Cal
Did you mean an insistence as to no public investigation (i.e., retards like Bob Wexler screaming in front of a microphone), or no investigation whatsoever?
817. CalGal - 5/17/2002 10:57:35 AM
Daniel, the fact that neither you or Wombat remembers the attempt--which I am nearly sure I bitched about back in September--makes me worry that I somehow did hallucinate it. It's a hard search to Google, so I'm still working on it. I absolutely agree that one's on me, and since no one else remembers it I will cheerfully take that one off the list until I find out if my fertile imagination did a hard drive rewrite.
Airline hijack policy was, prior to 9/11, strict compliance. This is never officially acknowledged (for security reasons), although news reports generally discussed this at the time. My father is a long-time airline employee and confirms this, although I realize that might not be enough for you. Are you saying you are unaware of this? I had thought it was commonly known; if not, I will either find a source or discuss it more generally.
Democrats Say Bush Must Give Full Disclosure
Senator Robert G. Torricelli, Democrat of New Jersey, who has also pushed hard for a commission, noted that Vice President Dick Cheney repeatedly pressed Congress last fall to avoid an investigation while troops were in Afghanistan. In light of recent disclosures, Mr. Torricelli said, "that argument just became extremely disingenuous."
I also think it should be public, btw.
Apart from McKinney, have you seen anyone hint that Bush knew more? Or only that they want to see what the FBI told Bush? It certainly seems that Bush wants to portray their call for data as political, but I haven't seen much evidence.
818. Daniel Sickles - 5/17/2002 11:04:50 AM
Cal
On the prior hijack/threat to ram WTC claim, it is probably best withdrawn.
On compliance, you are the only source from whom I've heard a thing about compliance policy, and I can't imagine that given your observations, there has been no article at all on the issue. I don't doubt your sincerity, but I'd like to see some support.
On the administration objecting to an investigation, I think the objections is based on the public nature of the event.
This is all I've seen (g) - from Today's Salon:
Friday, May 17, 2002
[In News]
The 9/11 coverup
First the White House ignored warnings about al-Qaida. Then it tried to stop Congress from getting the truth. Now we know why
By Joe Conason
Storm on Capitol Hill
The president smells "the sniff of politics in the air," but as the 9/11 story hits Washington, Democrats and Republicans alike demand "a sniff of truth"
By Anthony York
The Bush spin machine
What did they lie about, and when did they lie about it?
By Michelle Goldberg
See no evil
Not even Bush's blame-everything-on-Clinton team can wriggle out of this one
By David Talbot
It's a circle jerk or recrimination and naked politicization from those who the day before decried the dissemination of a photo showing the president on the phone.
819. Cellar Door - 5/17/2002 11:11:43 AM
"This issue actually dovetails nicely into what I perceive to be a philosophical divide in this country: those who hunger for recrimination, blame, and advantage during crisis, and those who recognize the complexities and difficulties of managing a nation in which much that is awful cannot be prevented. "
A good point, but there's more to it than that. Right after 9/11 all sorts of direOliver Stone-like muttering could be heard on the net-- which seemed quite ridiculous to me. At the time the entire affair simply struck me as amassive failure of the intelligence community,coupled with a breakdown of needed cooperation between said community, local law enforcment, the FBI, and the transportation companies. Now something else is involved.
820. CalGal - 5/17/2002 11:12:19 AM
Also, Daniel, I thought that the FBI agent who wrote the memo on the threat of a plane being flown in the WTC mentioned that attempt, or that this was behind his musings.
I think that the memo, the arrest, and the increase in terrorists in flight training was sufficient to start mulling over What It All Meant. It never got to that point. That's what concerns me.
"Common Strategy":
Believe it or not," says ALPA’s first vice president, Capt. Dennis Dolan, who chairs ALPA’s Security Task Force, "After the attacks on September 11, some airlines were perfectly willing to continue training employees with the same Common Strategy—the game plan for dealing with hijackers—that had been used since the early 1980s. Even more amazing was the fact that the FAA did not object to the position the airlines took.
"The old version of the Common Strategy relied on compliance with hijackers’ demands and negotiated resolutions to hijackings. After the tragedies of September 11, it became painfully clear—to us, at least—that a new strategy was required: anyone trying to breach the cockpit door must be neutralized at all costs."
FAA mandated training on Common Strategy.
821. CalGal - 5/17/2002 11:14:34 AM
If you want more sources--I didn't feel like going through them all--just google on "common strategy" FAA hijack
It really is common knowledge, Daniel, and in that case I had every reason to figure that you--and pretty much anyone else--would know it. I've already retracted the other until I can find it.
822. wonkers2 - 5/17/2002 11:16:19 AM
Seems to me this fiasco shows that the most important part of dealing with terrorism needs to be done, not by the military, but by the CIA, FBI, Justice Department, INS and the State Department. Also, state and local law enforcement agencies and ordinary citizens have a role to play in finding and catching terrorists. The State Department has a key role to play in enlisting the essential cooperation of as many other countries as possible. The military has a rifle shot role to play, but the Pentagon's actions can be counter-productive as in the case of their simplistic, stubborn insistence on military tribunals.
823. CalGal - 5/17/2002 11:24:35 AM
On the administration objecting to an investigation, I think the objections is based on the public nature of the event.
I disagree. I'll look for sources from last year, but I seem to recall Bush regularly dismissing the need to investigate the FBI and the CIA, when instead I would have thought he'd be furious that he hadn't been told of things like the memo and so on.
The administration had reluctantly agreed to investigations before now, but had continually played down the need. I think they didn't want this information getting out, and I think that was a mistake on their part.
824. Wombat - 5/17/2002 11:40:10 AM
JC:
In my defense, the 1993 attack was not linked to Bin Laden until several years afterward. As to falsity...
First WTC Truck Bomb
Khobar Towers Suicide Bombing
Kenya and Tanzania US Embassy Bombings Suicide Bombing
USS Cole Suicide Bombing
Given the paucity of attacks attributed to Bin Laden, I would say that there is a distinct pattern of suicide bombings that would set alarm bells ringing when Bin Laden and airplane hijacking share the same threat report.
825. CalGal - 5/17/2002 11:44:40 AM
I still wonder why, when given one Arab who was taking flight training, paying cash, uninterested in takeoffs or landing, they didn't check to see if there were any others.
826. OhioSTOPAS - 5/17/2002 1:09:03 PM
Of course this is hindsight, but it shouldn't have been too hard to ask private flight schools that teach the piloting of jet airplanes if they had any foreign nationals as students recently. How many such schools can there be?
827. thoughtful - 5/17/2002 1:11:52 PM
Of course we believe everything the government tells us, especially in this time of heightened alert...to do otherwise would be unpatriotic.
Just testing my video equipment, honest.
828. thoughtful - 5/17/2002 1:16:31 PM
Does this strike anyone else as just too comical?
"I take my job as commander in chief very seriously," he [Bush] told Air Force cadets and officers in a Rose Garden ceremony honoring their football team.
829. OhioSTOPAS - 5/17/2002 1:18:43 PM
Daniel Sickels, Message # 818: ". . . those who the day before decried the dissemination of a photo showing the president on the phone."
Phony disingenuousness. There are of course lots of pictures of President Bush at work, on the phone or otherwise. This PARTICULAR picture has market value because of the drama of knowing he is discussing the murders of thousands of people. It is the victim's deaths that make this picture a valuable commodity for sale, when it otherwise would have little sale value.
That is why the RNC's sale of this photograph constitutes profiting off the deaths of the September 11 victims.
830. Wombat - 5/17/2002 1:53:20 PM
Choudhury is an Indian surname.
831. Rama - 5/17/2002 2:12:06 PM
Seems to me this fiasco shows that the most important part of dealing with terrorism needs to be done, not by the military, but by the CIA,
FBI, Justice Department, INS and the State Department.
And there you are completely wrong. Terrorism is not an issue law enforcement can deal with through any of its normal processes. And while intelligence is important to dealing with terrorism, there are severe limits on what can be accomplished. The international terrorist organizations that launch attacks such as 9/11 can only be disrupted in the short run by concerted military action. In the long run, they are disrupted by political change, which is not a good function for any of the agencies you listed.
Also, state and local law enforcement agencies and ordinary citizens have a role to play in finding and catching terrorists.
They have a role. But it is not a very important one.
The State Department has a key role to play in enlisting the essential cooperation of as many other countries as possible.
The military has a rifle shot role to play, but the Pentagon's actions can be counter-productive as in the case of their simplistic, stubborn insistence on military tribunals.
The Pentagon did not ask for, much less insist on, military tribunals.
832. rubberducky - 5/17/2002 2:32:58 PM
just seeing if history is repeating itself.
833. Cellar Door - 5/17/2002 3:34:58 PM
For the Press to know and the rest of us not to so much as think of asking questions about.
834. Rama - 5/17/2002 3:42:13 PM
The American press seemed to want Bush in the White House so badly, they were willing to omit facts, bury important information and flat-out lie
to get him there.
A vast fourth estate conspiracy!
835. Cellar Door - 5/17/2002 4:34:30 PM
Half-vast.
836. Daniel Sickles - 5/17/2002 5:21:52 PM
Ohio
It appears there is much gain to be made of the tragedy, and in many ways. As you are not an honest broker, I understand your inability to see that fact.
Cal
Thanks for the link and the clarifications.
Wombat
You made a mistake. If you feel it does not affect your analysis, so be it.
To what "First WTC Truck Bomb" are you referring in your compendium of "suicide bombings" or have you merely repeated your mistake?
837. OhioSTOPAS - 5/17/2002 5:58:46 PM
Caught in some dishonest dissembling for his beloved GOP (Bush 9/11 picture, being sold for $150, is just a picture of the president on the phone), Niner/Jack/Francis/Julius/haveiforgottenanyothers/Daniel responds with: Ignores the substance of the debate, calls the opponent dishonest, declares himself the victor, adds a dose of pomposity, and disappears.
Gee, what a surprise! Who knew he'd do THAT??
838. Daniel Sickles - 5/17/2002 7:54:06 PM
Ohio
If you actually thought I was trying to slide the picture by you as something other than the President on the phone during 9/11, you must presume that I think you are more stupid than you are. Rest assured. I don't think you are that stupid.
I presume you object to any photograph soliciting donations to a political party or campaign which may show or recount the candidate or office-holder "in action" on the day of a particular tragedy?
844. Daniel Sickles - 5/17/2002 8:36:19 PM
Ohio is not here pulling his pud to immediately respond to my last post. By definition, it must mean he has "disappeared".
Gee, what a surprise! Who knew he'd do THAT?? (g)
847. OhioSTOPAS - 5/18/2002 6:12:05 AM
"Ohio is not here pulling his pud . . ."
Ah, a reference to someone's penis (mine for a change, instead of Al Gore's).
NOW the Niner/Jack/Francis/Julius/whatever/Daniel refutation of my argument is complete.
848. OhioSTOPAS - 5/18/2002 6:13:01 AM
Have a good weekend, everybody. See you Monday.
849. Daniel Sickles - 5/18/2002 9:41:05 AM
Ohio has "disappeared" yet again. Without answering a simple question. Some might call it "ignoring the substance of the debate."
I presume you object to any photograph soliciting donations to a political party or campaign which may show or recount the candidate or office-holder "in action" on the day of a particular tragedy?
Until Ohio can answer this question, it would appear that his high-handed denunciation of the 9-11 photo is very situation specific (a common affliction of those without principles).
So I will give him the weekend to study the matter, collect his thoughts, and "re-appear" with an answer.
850. Daniel Sickles - 5/18/2002 9:54:50 AM
I disagree with Ohio, who decries a political party because a sale of this photograph constitutes profiting off the deaths of the September 11 victims.
I think political parties/candidates profit all the time off of tragedy (by direct comment or photograph or speech or other memento). I think such actions are unremarkable and, gaudy as political hustling can be, appropriate.
Hence, as an example, when Al Gore was in a debate, he told us of his quick response to a tragedy. His recollection was a bit faulty, and he was certainly attempting to profit politically from a tragedy, but I wasn't offended. What he was saying - for votes - is "When people die, I'm there. I'm a man of action!!!!"
Before engaging Ohio on the larger matter, however, I have to do some minor pre-op work to ascertain if he is entering the discussion with principles or merely his pud. When he answers the ante, we can proceed.
851. Daniel Sickles - 5/18/2002 10:02:09 AM
My particular line, however, is when you try to profit politically over the deaths of your loved ones.
Unlike Ohio, I have a track record of having roundly condemned Gore's vile use of the death of his sister and Bush (the father's) vile use of the death of a child at political conventions.
One can make an argument that to know the essence of each man, these revelations are critical. But profit, they did.
If they had disseminated the Gore speech (by text or video) and the Bush video to donors, are they profiting by tragedy?
I'm not saying they did. I'll marshal my evidence until Ohio decides -pud or principles.
852. Cellar Door - 5/18/2002 10:05:48 AM
Sos did you buy a copy of the Bush photo?
853. Cellar Door - 5/18/2002 10:07:06 AM
"I'm not saying they did."
OK, I will. This isn't rocket science.
855. jexster - 5/18/2002 10:11:15 AM
My particular line, however, is when you try to profit politically over the deaths of your loved ones.
Unlike Ohio, I have a track record of having roundly condemned Gore's vile use of the death of his sister and Bush (the father's) vile use of the death of a child at political conventions.
One is a matter for Ann Landers, the other, a matter of morals muddled, principles puddled.
Bush's use of 9-1-1, aside from the fact that he has done nada except exploit it and label critics treasonous, irresponsible, POLITICALLY MOTIVATED(sheesh), now that is vile
856. Daniel Sickles - 5/18/2002 10:11:51 AM
Cellar
No. But I got the commemorative "The Day Reagan Was Shot" poster for $1000.
When I was a Democrat, they sent me the Zapruder film for $500.
867. Daniel Sickles - 5/19/2002 10:02:48 AM
Friedman
It appears Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd hijacked the last third of this Friedman column.
Damn you, George Bush, for rejecting Kyoto!
872. ronski - 5/19/2002 12:08:19 PM
Woolsey up and Tenet out would be a good thing, I guess.
But both major parties will end up treading very carefully here, as even more instances of missed opportunities to prevent 9/11 are bound to come out, and they will implicate the Dems and GOP both. Reagan and Bush pere, for example, were both warned that bin Laden (not just the Afghani Muhadajeen) associated with the U.S. soley to get the Soviets out of Afghanistan and that bin Laden was in fact an implacable enemy of the U.S.
It was specifically warned that bin Laden was putting together an international network of terrorists to strike at U.S. interests.
These warnings were given to the Reagan administration as early as the early-to-mid 1980s, and were repeated to Bush 41 and to Clinton, according to a radio report I heard Friday night.
874. CalGal - 5/19/2002 12:53:30 PM
I've been cleaning house today. PoJ, no Free Republic links.
876. CalGal - 5/19/2002 1:03:04 PM
On Bush's use of the photo: Daniel compares it to Gore's tragedy-whoring and asks the difference. Well, Gore's primary tragedies were his own, not America's. So if it was distasteful--and I found it mildly so--it was his own sorrow and reaction to use in such a fashion.
Closer was Gore's mention of rushing to a flood, or whatever (that he didn't, in fact, rush to). But there Gore mentioned it in a debate--for political capital, sure. But not for blatant begs for money.
This, on top of the fact that Republicans like Daniel have always sneered at Gore's use of tragedy, always with the implicit assertion that right thinking Republicans wouldn't need to use such sissy tactics to prove their manhood.
It's distasteful. Done for money, it's pretty disgusting. I think the Republicans are taken aback by the negative reaction, which is good thing #1. With any luck, the less respectable Dem voices will continue to find clever balloon quotes for Bush and chip away at any political gain the funds provided.
877. Property of Jesus - 5/19/2002 1:07:32 PM
Why no linking, Cal?
And, please be consistent
878. Daniel Sickles - 5/19/2002 3:21:13 PM
This, on top of the fact that Republicans like Daniel have always sneered at Gore's use of tragedy, always with the implicit assertion that right thinking Republicans wouldn't need to use such sissy tactics to prove their manhood.
I criticized Bush for the video utilizing his dead infant and Gore for the speech utilizing (and worse, perhaps lying about) his dead sister. I can't speak for Repoblicans, but if they "like me", they never really made the tie of gratutitousness and manhood.
The rest of your post is fair. Everybody draws lines and there are those who believe the revelation of personal tragedy is perfectly appropriate because it is a leader showing from whence he or she comes.
I only ask that those who are "disgusted" at the one be consistent.
I disagree with your political analysis. It is May. By September, the use of 9-11 in campaigns will be bi-partisan and regular.
879. Daniel Sickles - 5/19/2002 3:22:36 PM
Repoblicans=Republicans
they "like me"=they are "like me"
880. CalGal - 5/19/2002 3:26:24 PM
By September, the use of 9-11 in campaigns will be bi-partisan and regular.
Oh, I agree. But will it be used so blatantly in fundraising? Spend money and get a cool photo of Bush on The Big Day, acting all Presidentlike?
Everybody draws lines and there are those who believe the revelation of personal tragedy is perfectly appropriate because it is a leader showing from whence he or she comes.
I believe I said I found it mildly distasteful. All I'm saying is that there is a difference between exploiting one's own tragedy and someone else's.
881. Daniel Sickles - 5/19/2002 3:31:37 PM
Cal
Probably not, but that seems a minor difference (fundraising versus advertising versus a video at a $250 per head dinner versus using a firefighter as a draw, etc . . .) The broader theme of the Democratic attack today is trading in on tragedy. By September, the imagery will be a bazaar. And the defenses will be "Oh, well this is different . . ." Actually, the photo flap was such a blip, I don't think folks will bother with mounting a defense.
On your second point, I agree there is a difference.
882. Cellar Door - 5/19/2002 3:38:57 PM
It blipped only because of the "Bush Knew!" story.
883. Cellar Door - 5/19/2002 3:39:33 PM
I smell lawsuits.
884. CalGal - 5/19/2002 3:40:54 PM
Actually, the photo flap was such a blip, I don't think folks will bother with mounting a defense.
The reason they don't, from what I can tell, is that quite a few Republicans found it distasteful. Delroy Murdock referred to it as an "unforced error" today on Blitzer's show, and that's a good way to describe it. I seem to recall Hastert was slow to defend it, too. So it was not a bright spot in the Bush presidency, and since there's nothing more to be done on it, it will fade.
I don't know if you've watched the news at all over the past two days, but in regards to our discussion of the failure pre-9/11, I believe my position, as stated the other day, most closely mirrors Senator Shelby, who has been pretty blunt in his criticism of the FBI. Shelby's a Republican, which I think means that it's possible to criticize the FBI without even going near the Bush administration. Did you miss the memo?
885. Daniel Sickles - 5/19/2002 3:41:32 PM
Cellar
Even with Bush Knew!, it was a nothing story. Much like a whore screaming Unsafe Sex!
I hope you're correct on the lawsuits.
Adios.
886. Daniel Sickles - 5/19/2002 3:43:34 PM
Cal
I took issue with your factual misstatements and loose language. If Shelby and you align, I think that's dandy.
887. CalGal - 5/19/2002 3:50:15 PM
Daniel,
No, that was much later. Your first response was the "Blood on his hands!" mockery posts, where you suddenly realized that I hadn't mentioned the President and then thanked me for finally getting around to it.
I have only made one statement that I didn't back up, and have retracted, although I'm still not sure it was a misstatement. But "I need to figure out if I hallucinated it" is generally a good sign that I should research it first. (g)
The others were due to your ignorance, not my errors.
888. concerned - 5/20/2002 4:14:18 AM
The Phantom Menace
Excerpt:
Matt Drudge, meanwhile, has dipped into his archives and turned up this December 1998 report: "Intelligence sources tell TIME they have evidence that bin Laden may be planning his boldest move yet--a strike on Washington or possibly New York City in an eye-for-an-eye retaliation." This makes Josh Marshall testy: "I'm trying to think if I can imagine anything more pitiful than Matt Drudge's attempt to pin this all on Clinton by . . . well, dredging up some 1998 warning about al Qaida planning attacks on NY and DC.
Something more pitiful than that? Easy. Try the hysterical efforts by Lefty nitwits to pin this all on George W. Bush.
889. concerned - 5/20/2002 4:37:18 AM
Jeezum Crow, CalGal. Nearly 900 posts in and you still haven't thought of a better title for this thread? Maybe it's time to go for a new blurb, instead.
890. concerned - 5/20/2002 4:58:02 AM
Why FBI Keeps 9/11 Memo Close to the Vest
Does this mean that if suspects names leak because of 'Rat pressure that McKinney et al will be thrown out of office next election cycle or at least apologize for causing collateral damage because of their arrant stupidity?
Naaah...they're 'Rats.
891. OhioSTOPAS - 5/20/2002 11:48:01 AM
Regarding Message # 849 et seq:
Daniel: I didn't have time or interest Saturday morning in accepting your proposal to discuss a new (albeit related) issue (i.e., your move from "The $150 RNC photograph is just the President on the phone" to "Okay, the RNC photograph exploits a tragedy, but it's analogous to what other politicians have done"). But I see that in the meantime CalGal demolished your weak attempt to compare the Republican National Committee's cashing in on 9-11 to Al Gore's maudlin "At My Dying Sister's Bedside" speech.
If you can come up with a tragedy that comes close to matching 9-11, we can discuss and compare politicians' exploitation of that tragedy.
892. Rama - 5/20/2002 11:55:12 AM
Now that the administration is spilling the beans about the degree to which it is able to monitor terrorist communications, it will be interesting to see how the hacks blame the administration for the next terrorist attack. For those who are posting on this thread: What should be being done right now to predict/deter/protect/correct/mitigate the next terrorist attack?
893. concerned - 5/20/2002 11:57:36 AM
Re. 892 -
Rama -
The 'Rats will reserve themselves the option of claiming that the Bush Administration was too forthcoming in response to their previous round of harassment. Which is why the best response is to ignore such irresponsible criticism.
894. Daniel Sickles - 5/20/2002 12:54:06 PM
Ohio
Daniel: I didn't have time or interest Saturday morning in accepting your proposal to discuss a new (albeit related) issue (i.e., your move from "The $150 RNC photograph is just the President on the phone" to "Okay, the RNC photograph exploits a tragedy, but it's analogous to what other politicians have done").
Yes. I missed your quick response, which you deem "disappearing". Again, I don't really think you are stupid as all that.
But I see that in the meantime CalGal demolished your weak attempt to compare the Republican National Committee's cashing in on 9-11 to Al Gore's maudlin "At My Dying Sister's Bedside" speech.
Actually, Cal's posts pointed up a difference, but, to her credit, I think she realizes that condemnation should be consistent.
If you can come up with a tragedy that comes close to matching 9-11, we can discuss and compare politicians' exploitation of that tragedy.
Someone with intellectual integrity would twice-asked question answer my question prior to my dropping the other shoe. Someone with more skill would do better than the ass-covering tarpaulin of close to matching 9-11.
In our last two discussion, I have tried to get past your Begalan ethic. I cannot. We need not address each other further.
895. Daniel Sickles - 5/20/2002 12:55:46 PM
"would twice-asked question answer my question" = would answer my twice-asked
896. CalGal - 5/20/2002 1:07:09 PM
I don't think Bush did the same thing as Gore did. Had they sold a picture of Bush crying on 9/11, rending his hair because a buddy of his died at the Pentagon, that would be equivalent in terms of whoring, and it would also be worse, because 9/11 wasn't his tragedy in the way that Gore's was.
Nonetheless, I think he did exploit the tragedy, by using his "Look! I'm in charge!" photo. I think it was less maudlin that Gore's events, but it lost far more points in that he did it for money, and it wasn't his tragedy.
897. concerned - 5/20/2002 1:17:02 PM
but it lost far more points in that he did it for money...huh?...., and it wasn't his tragedy....double huh?....
So the Left thinks that getting its panties in a bunch over this photograph is relevant, how....?
The silly season must have officially started.
898. thoughtful - 5/20/2002 2:50:43 PM
Transcript of VP Cheney's appearance with Tim Russert on Meet the Press. Without any other commentary at this point, I will present it only as an interesting read.
899. OhioSTOPAS - 5/20/2002 4:39:58 PM
Gosh.
Niner/Jack/Francis/Julius/whatshisname/Daniel isn't talking to me.
Now THAT'S a tragedy.
900. Daniel Sickles - 5/20/2002 4:54:21 PM
The last words are yours.
901. CalGal - 5/20/2002 5:07:06 PM
Actually, I think they were yours.
902. Rama - 5/20/2002 5:22:13 PM
No, they were yours.
D'oh!
903. CalGal - 5/20/2002 5:26:56 PM
I thought that Daniel and Ohio were the only players.
904. concerned - 5/20/2002 5:30:59 PM
The Ohio Players? That brings back some memories...
905. CalGal - 5/20/2002 5:34:20 PM
Foreigners Obtain Social Security ID With Fake Papers
Tens of thousands of foreigners are illegally obtaining Social Security numbers by using fake documents, a typical first step to identity theft and other crimes, but federal officials still have not found a way to search immigration records to prevent the practice, federal investigators say.
In a new report, the inspector general of the Social Security Administration, James G. Huse Jr., said that 1 in 12 foreigners receiving new Social Security numbers had done so using fake documents. Preliminary results from an investigation still under way show that 100,000 Social Security numbers were wrongly issued to noncitizens in 2000, Mr. Huse said.
Rama, you want to know what I want the administration to do? I want them to run a check of all Social Security numbers issued and compare them against the INS database. I want them to make it a lot harder to get a Social Security number, and to hell with the fact that it inconveniences "legitimate" applicants.
For starters.
906. Rama - 5/20/2002 7:48:27 PM
I want them to run a check of all Social Security numbers issued and compare them against the INS database.
How do you propose they do that?
I want them to make it a lot harder to get a Social Security number, and to hell with the fact that it inconveniences "legitimate" applicants.
Easy for you to say. But the guy who missed out on getting that job because he couldn't get a replacement card in time after his was destroyed in a house fire, the widow who wasn't able to get her husband's benefits for three months because she didn't know her SSN, and the couple who have to pay a fine on their income tax because they didn't plan ahead on getting the new baby an SSN, won't be so cheery about making the process harder.
907. CalGal - 5/20/2002 7:57:10 PM
In all three cases, too bad. The widow who doesn't know her SocSec id these days has no excuse, no one needs a card if you have the number, and you have a long time to plan ahead on the SSN for a newborn.
How do you propose they do that?
For now, manually, if they have to.
908. Rama - 5/20/2002 8:02:26 PM
In all three cases, too bad.
All three will get play on the evening news. In our current political environment, these three "victims" will trump your concern.
For now, manually, if they have to.
Manually, how? Looking at what? If I want a unique SSN, I will get fake identity papers and request one and wait. If I just want a legit SSN I will fish one out of the trash. And if I am a well-healed terrorist, I will buy one. And you can feel free to examine my INS file all you want.
909. CalGal - 5/20/2002 8:08:57 PM
All three will get play on the evening news.
As did the people who get randomly checked to avoid the "profiling" charge. And no one gets to rush to a plane at the last minute these days--there are plenty of sob stories there. How come you didn't declare those a showstopper when people talked about additional security?
If I want a unique SSN, I will get fake identity papers and request one and wait.
There are plenty of illegal aliens using their real names and fake ids, as well as illegal aliens using their own names and stolen ids. Either way, there is useful information in crossreferencing.
910. jexster - 5/20/2002 8:54:30 PM
Is Bush Hyping the New al-Qaida Threat?
God, Chatterbox hopes so
Silly me I thought our WarLord had taken care of Al Qaeda last November.
911. Rama - 5/20/2002 8:57:28 PM
How come you didn't declare those a showstopper when people talked about additional security?
'Cause they weren't implemented until a whole buncha people got blowd up on aeroplanes.
There are plenty of illegal aliens using their real names and fake ids, as well as illegal aliens using their own names and stolen ids. Either way, there is useful information in crossreferencing.
But there is no proof that any of them are terrorists, or that terrorists would bother with fake ids to maintain residence.
912. Rama - 5/20/2002 8:58:17 PM
Silly me
Such honesty!
913. concerned - 5/21/2002 1:44:27 AM
...no one needs a card if you have the number...
Not true. To get my present job (at a DoE facility), I had to produce an actual Social Security Card as well as a birth certificate.
914. thoughtful - 5/21/2002 8:53:40 AM
Re the INS and tightening up on illegal aliens, I wish they would just talk to current immigrants. Conversations with non-US citizens I work with always yield the most incredible stories about how people can manipulate the system, as well as how slow and inefficient the operation is and in what few areas INS is effective.
For example, someone has finally figured out that the de facto country ID is drivers licenses and that, if the visa is only good for 6 mos, the person shouldn't be issued a drivers license which is valid for 4 years. Seems an obvious and easy to fix situation, but then again we are talking about separate bureaucratic institutions which don't talk to each other.
Of course, this is exactly the kind of thing tom ridge should be working on, but he has no power whatsoever to effect any change in this regard. I wonder if they've unwrapped the staplers yet.
915. CalGal - 5/21/2002 9:40:40 AM
'Cause they weren't implemented until a whole buncha people got blowd up on aeroplanes.
And those people were blown up by illegal aliens. Six of them were here illegally, and a good percentage of the rest had lied in some way on their application--which means they were here illegally too. And while this particular crew didn't have invalid Soc Sec #s, the fact is that id fraud is one of the main reasons we have trouble with illegal aliens.
So if we can implement new airline security even despite the sob stories, we can put new SocSec procedures in place despite the sob stories.
But there is no proof that any of them are terrorists, or that terrorists would bother with fake ids to maintain residence.
Not true. We have proof that at least 7 illegal aliens were terrorists, and some of them had fake ids.
Thoughtful brings up another problem that I'd like to see the government fix--state driver license requirements. There's a reason why none of them had California licenses, but instead had Virginia and Florida licenses. You get a license in Virginia by paying a street person $100 to say he knows you, then you get a Florida license by moving to the state. The state of North Carolina had thousands of license entries with 999-99-9999 as the Soc Sec id.
I'd like to see it be required that a) you must provide a birth certificate and proof of legal residency if not a citizen and b) you can't get a license for longer than you have the right to be here. I don't care if there are sob stories, and there will be.
916. CalGal - 5/21/2002 9:42:18 AM
To get my present job (at a DoE facility), I had to produce an actual Social Security Card as well as a birth certificate.
I think you'd agree that the caveat is the reason, wouldn't you? But in general, you just need the id. I can present a passport, which usually removes all other requirements.
917. concerned - 5/21/2002 10:48:00 AM
The caveat? Explain.
918. CalGal - 5/21/2002 10:51:57 AM
The caveat being the fact that you were working a government job, presumably higher than entry level.
919. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 5/21/2002 12:38:48 PM
I found this piece interesting . . .
But if you lean to the left, like the French authors Guillaume Dasquié and Jean-Charles Brisard, who feature a July interview with O'Neill in their new book, Ben Laden, La Vérité Interdite, you've outed O'Neill as a sort of smoking gun -- a man who they say all but confirmed in his final months that George W. Bush's oil-industry-bred administration was so worried about alienating Saudi Arabia that it decided to negotiate with the Taliban rather than go after it. Before September 11, they argue, the United States' primary goal was to build a pipeline in Central Asia -- tapping oilfields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Indian Ocean.
920. concerned - 5/21/2002 12:41:23 PM
They argue wrongly, for one thing. That plan was dropped years ago.
921. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 5/21/2002 12:44:12 PM
So "they" say . . . like they would never support tariffs that would hinder free trade!
922. concerned - 5/21/2002 1:05:45 PM
Well, for one thing, Caspian sea oil shipped to the Black Sea (or Mediterranean) is the current thing, and Russia and Iran are the major players. Besides, what is to be done by the US to quell the lefty conspiracy mongers other than to tell all US based Oil corporations that the Middle East is off limits, because doing any business there might cause some Surrender Monkeys to reach for the Peptol Bismol. And you know what the corporations would say to that? Fuck you, Uncle Sam! What a joke.
Besides, to say an oil pipeline is the US's 'major goal', as if there were no larger policy issues, merely shows the limited and skewed perspective of the claimant.
923. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 5/21/2002 1:48:06 PM
What's "off limits" is a rational conservation/renewability of energy resources rather than a shiting-where-we-all-eat-for-bigger-and -quicker-profits policy of exploitation--that is to say the Bush-Vision-Thing as the "US's major goal."
924. Cellar Door - 5/21/2002 2:55:00 PM
PHOENIX MEMO
WENT TO
FRUSTRATED
NYC PATRIOT-MARTYR
John O'Neill, FBI Hero, Got Word in July,
Was Rebuffed, "Retired" In Anger
NY Times, Incredibly, Reports
And Then Blows Huge Story
A Crucial Piece Of The Bush Scandal Puzzle?
In a stunning revelation, the New York Times has reported that among the two FBI office counterterrorism chiefs who received the now famously neglected Phoenix memorandum last July was none other than John O'Neill -- then the top counterterrorist officer in the FBI's New York City's office, and the FBI's leading expert on Osama bin Laden.
O'Neill knew perfectly well what Al Qaeda was up to, and had been knocking on doors (and, at times, heads) for years to get his colleagues and superiors to understand what he did.
The last straw came in July 2001, when (as he told the French authors Guillaume Dasquié and Jean-Charles Brisard in an interview), O'Neill became fully aware that the Bush administration, anxious over negotiations for a Caspian Sea oil pipe line, had decided to back off of tracking bin Laden and opposing the Taliban, lest it risk alienating powerful Saudi families. Instead of going after the Taliban and bin Laden, the Bush Administration decided to negotiate and try to buy off the Taliban and bin Laden.
Unfortunately for the Administration, the pipe-line negotiations broke down in August.
And on September 11, bin Laden struck.
What no one has known until now is that at the very moment that O'Neill was finally giving up, in July, he was being apprised of the Phoenix memorandum -- a memo, it seems, that practically nobody inside the Bush Administration was willing to treat seriously other than himself.
925. Cellar Door - 5/21/2002 2:55:47 PM
At the end of August, in disgust, O'Neill left the FBI to take what he somewhat ruefully regarded as his "retirement" job --as head of security at the World Trade Center. There, on September 11, John O'Neill died at the hands of his arch-enemy bin Laden's fiendish followers.
Connect the dots? Well, duh! O'Neill got the Phoenix message. No one would listen. No one. The Bushies had backed off bin Laden. So O'Neill changed jobs -- and went on to die a martyr's death. While all the people who ignored him, on up the chain to the Oval Office, live on -- ghoulishly making political hay out of his sacrifice and their own incompetence -- and, in a sense, their own perfidy.
But here's the really amazing thing -- having unearthed this blockbuster, the New York Times reporters David Johnston and Don Van Natta, Jr., simply bury it in their story.
They report, incredibly, that O'Neill simply "retired" back in August -- ignoring the well-known background, leaving the dots unconnected!!
926. Cellar Door - 5/21/2002 2:56:03 PM
What did O'Neill know back in July? Whom did he try to warn? What happened when he did so? What did his "retirement" -- and its tragic consequences -- have to do with his frustrated efforts to get Bush's people to listen to him about the Phoenix memo, and/or about everything else he knew about Osama bin Laden's clear and present danger to American lives?
Here are some questions that the Bush people don't want asked, by the New York Times, by a National Board of Investigation, or by anyone else.
Who among ye Whores will have the guts to ask them -- and then have the additional guts to find the answers?
If you can't be stirred by common decency or by human justice or by old-fashioned professionalism, listen to this -- there's a Pulitzer Prize here for someone with enough guts.
Just connect the dots -- and do some intelligent reporting.
In death, the hero John O'Neill may just turn out to be the central clue to solving the Bush 9/11 scandal.
Which will still be cruel -- but at least might lead to justice.
927. TabouliJones - 5/21/2002 3:35:09 PM
The New Yorker ran a piece on O'Neil some time ago -- around Christmas or New Years I believe. He was portrayed as having exceptional instincts about the threat of terrorism and someone persistently urged the FBI to undertake counter-terrorism measures. However, I don't recall the author drawing a direct link to O'Neil and the Bush administration or suggesting that there was any wilful blindness on the part of Bush or FBI power brokers with respect to the threat of a Bin Laden sponsored attack.
Part of the reason O'Neil's warnings went unheeded may have been internal politicking and personal ill-will. O'Neil was an abrasive personality who was seen by many as an overly flashy, promotion obsessesed politico, who was more concerned with his own success than forthright assessment of terrorist perils and who had himself made a couple of minor, but significant operational errors. Such regrettable conflict, as much as anything, may have been responsible for O'Neil's inability to convince others of the full extent of the threat that Bin Laden posed to the U.S. It also does much to explain his retirement.
Which is all unfortunate, of course. But, in my recollection, the piece does not suggest that O'Neil had any concrete evidence that would have made it possible to predict specific Bin Laden attacks with any degree of confidence, let alone, prevent the events of September 11. O'neil was prescient in his assessment of the overall threat. His instincts were accurate. But, in his warnings, I don't see any smoking gun indicating incompetence, irresponsibility or cynical political machinations on the part of the FBI or the Bush administration.
However, this view is based on one article and my recollection of it is sketchy, at best. I may have it at home. If so, I will dig it up and report back.
Has anyone else read the New Yorker piece on O'Neil.
928. CalGal - 5/21/2002 3:39:13 PM
It rings a bell. I'm about to resubscribe again. I wonder if it's on their site?
BTW, did you see the piece in the Times on the LA Times and their drop in circulation when they stopped focusing on local issues?
929. OhioSTOPAS - 5/21/2002 3:47:17 PM
Tabouli Jones - The article on John O'Neill you describe sounds like the one linked by the Wizard in Message # 919.
930. TabouliJones - 5/21/2002 3:53:25 PM
Ohio,
They are different articles. I will read the Wizard's link, however.
The article I am talking about, doesn't seem to be available on The New Yorker's site.
Calgal,
I didn't catch that piece. I would be interested to read it, though. If you have a link, it would be appreciated.
931. thoughtful - 5/21/2002 4:10:43 PM
From Cnn:
-- Citing an "abundance of caution," FBI alerts NYC authorities to be ready for possible terror attacks against landmarks, sources tell CNN.
932. OhioSTOPAS - 5/21/2002 4:28:52 PM
Donald Rumsfeld said today that terrorists will "inevitably" get nuclear weapons.
Are we scared yet?
We gonna stop talking about Bush administration failures now?
933. OhioSTOPAS - 5/21/2002 4:30:49 PM
TabouliJ - I think this is the New Yorker article you discussed a few posts ago.
934. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 5/21/2002 4:42:58 PM
Just guess who said these words before you click on the link . . .
"We have no choice but to address the policies and decisions, made at the very highest level of our government, which helped bring us to this point," an influential political voice said less than a month after Sept. 11. "To do otherwise is to be irresponsible and unprepared in the face of a ruthless enemy, whose objective is to kill many more Americans."
935. TabouliJones - 5/21/2002 4:51:30 PM
Ohio,
Bingo. I couldn't for the life of me find a search function on The New Yorker's site. Perhaps, that is only available to subscribers.
Here is Slate's summary of the article, which originally ran in the Januar 14, 2002 issue:
"A profile of former FBI counterterrorism expert John O'Neill depicts a man consumed in every sense by al-Qaida. His imperious style won him many enemies in the national security community, and his stressful personal life (a wife and at least two girlfriends) eventually led to several on-the-job lapses, but he was one of the few who recognized the terrorist threat in America and worked tirelessly to stop it. O'Neill retired from the bureau last August to take a job as head of security at the World Trade Center. He died in the attack, three weeks after his first day."
936. OhioSTOPAS - 5/21/2002 5:17:32 PM
T.J. - I found a link to the New Yorker article at mediawhoresonline.com.
937. TabouliJones - 5/21/2002 5:52:43 PM
I reread the New Yorker article, and my recollection was correct for the most part: O'Neill was correct about the prospect of potential Bin Laden attacks but unable to point to any one specific, impending and credible threat; internal politicking and his own personal failings had much to do with O'Neill's inability to generate the appropriate level of alert among his peers; and the article does not indicate any negligence or political motivation on the part of the Bush administration in terms of responding to O'Neill's concerns. I erred, however, in implying that O'Neill wasn't 100% sincere in his fear of impending Bin Laden attacks on U.S. soil.
I will check out the Wizard's link later.
938. TabouliJones - 5/21/2002 5:54:17 PM
It strikes me that some may turn O'Neill into some sort of symbol or rallying point in their efforts to tarnish the Bush administration.
939. TabouliJones - 5/21/2002 6:14:23 PM
I read the Wizard's link re: O'Neill. It is essentially the same in scope as The New Yorker piece, but adds that O'Neill's legacy has already become fertile ground for symbol-making by both the right and the left.
And I fail to see anything sinister in The New York Times' reportage of the O'Neill story.
940. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 5/21/2002 6:27:03 PM
". . . Look, I have not been terribly critical of the Bush Administration for what, at this point, appears to be the sketchy details that it knew before September 11. But I think we do need to be critical of the Bush Administration for taking eight months to disclose that it did have some of this information before September 11, because remember, one of the big questions, legitimate questions after the terrorist attack was how could this enormous intelligence system that we have that we spent billions of dollars a year on fail as it did?
Remember, since September 11, we've had-- Americans have been asked to give up a lot of civil liberties because our Attorney General has said that they did not have the tools to track terrorists.
Well, it turns out they did have the tools. They had an FBI agent in Phoenix who was doing his job, who sent that information to headquarters. And the problem was not that law enforcement didn't have the tools. The problem was that you had two agencies that were very secretive, very turf conscious that weren't talking with each other." [John Diaz of the San Francisco Chronicle.]
Excerpted from last night's New Hour.
941. TabouliJones - 5/21/2002 6:40:01 PM
From Slate:
One:
"In retrospect, it seems obvious to many people that the FBI, the CIA, and the White House should have "connected the dots" and anticipated al-Qaida's use of hijacked planes to hit the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. But everything seems more obvious in retrospect, because you know which things are true and which aren't. What makes hindsight so easy is that you know not just what you needed to worry about, but what you didn't need to worry about. Identifying threats and mobilizing to prevent them isn't as easy as finding a single pattern. Intelligence is full of patterns involving numerous groups, targets, and methods. If you're the president of the United States or one of his intelligence advisers, you have to decide which threats are most worth investigating, mobilizing for, or disrupting people's everyday lives for.
It's easy, after the fact, for reporters and political opponents to go back and dig up reports that hinted at what eventually happened. They don't have to sort through the false leads and alternative scenarios. They know how the story ends."
Two:
The Phoenix memo about terrorists' potential interest in flight-schools is still classified and hasn't been made public, but the NYT has an interesting quote from "a senior official who has read it." According to that official, the memo was based on "conjecture and assumptions," not hard intel. "This was just a good investigator taking a look at something," the official said. "It was a pure hunch."
I think an investigation is appropriate, and I hope the true facts come out. At this point, however, I don't see anything remotely resembling a smoking gun.
942. wonkers2 - 5/21/2002 6:40:38 PM
Maybe the guy in Phoenix should get a promotion. Maybe he should get Mueller's or Ashole's job!
943. CalGal - 5/21/2002 7:01:17 PM
That's a good piece in the New Yorker--I hadn't read it before, after all. One minor nit:
The stress of O'Neill's tangled personal life began to affect his professional behavior.
I see no reason to draw that conclusion. He definitely had a tangled personal life, but he seemed pretty paranoid about people who wanted to hurt him within the FBI. I'd guess that as a more likely cause.
Add Bodine to my slap list.
944. CalGal - 5/21/2002 7:03:21 PM
At this point, however, I don't see anything remotely resembling a smoking gun.
I don't either, but I think the main complaint is that the FBI's analysis capabilities are severely lacking. Why didn't anyone read that memo and think, "Wow, that's a possibility." and think about what could be done? Is it institutional or incapacity?
Especially given that they'd just arrested a guy for doing exactly what was speculated. Why not check with flight training schools? It's not a constitutional issue.
945. jexster - 5/21/2002 10:14:00 PM
946. concerned - 5/22/2002 3:05:06 AM
Excerpt from the NYT:
Libya and Sudan Said to Shy a Bit From Terror
PHILIP SHENON
WASHINGTON, May 21 — The State Department said today that despite the "horrific events of Sept. 11," its annual review of global terrorism trends could still offer a little good news about two longstanding American adversaries that may be moving away from sponsoring terrorist groups.
The two nations, Libya and Sudan, remained on the department's list of "state sponsors of terror," along with Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Syria and Cuba. But in issuing the annual report, the department said that Libya and Sudan had taken steps "to get out of the terrorism business."
"Sudan and Libya seem closest to understanding what they must do to get out of the terrorism business and each has taken measures pointing it in the right direction," the report said. Nations designated as state sponsors of terrorism are barred from receiving American economic assistance and arms-related exports.
The report said that the government of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi in Libya appeared to have curtailed its support for groups with links to terrorist activities, while Sudan had arrested groups tied to terrorism. Sudan provided harbor for years for Osama bin Laden and his Qaeda network, and elements of Al Qaeda are reported to continue to use the east African nation as a base, although not with active government support.
947. concerned - 5/22/2002 3:05:39 AM
The "Patterns of Global Terrorism," a report the department is legally bound to present to Congress each year, once again branded Iran "the most active state sponsor of terrorism" and said that its hard-line Islamic government had intensified its support over the last year for Palestinian militants.
In issuing the report at a news conference, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said the United States remained under a grave threat of new attacks. The report, he said, "confirms that terrorists are trying every way they can to get their hands on weapons of mass destruction, whether radiological, chemical, biological or nuclear."
The department's counterterrorism coordinator, Francis X. Taylor, said that he believed that additional attacks on the United States are "very, very likely." He said that despite 1,600 arrests around the world of people tied to Al Qaeda, the network is trying to regroup and "we are very much concerned."
It's good to see the leadership of some predominantly Islamic nations evolve to a bit higher plane than that which allows for promoting destructive religious whackjobbery.
948. OhioSTOPAS - 5/22/2002 3:18:55 PM
Here is an interesting Newsweek article about the Bush administration's non-efforts against terrorism, 1/20/01 to 9/10/01.
949. OhioSTOPAS - 5/22/2002 3:21:29 PM
It's especially interesting because Howard Fineman has previously given President Bush very sympathic - if not sycophantic - coverage.
950. wonkers2 - 5/22/2002 3:27:24 PM
Bush has it wrong. I heard somebody yesterday point out the obvious--that the military is ill equipped to fight terrorism. They did fine in Afghanistan where terrorists were recruited and trained. But the majority of Al Qaeda's nefarious activities originated clandestinely, not in Afghanistan, but in Germany, UK, US and scattered among other countries around the world. Rooting them out requires international cooperation, better intelligence, a lot of patience and a willingness to honestly address some of the issues (foremost Palestine) underlying terrorism against the United States. Instead of doing this, Bush has turned over too much to the Pentagon where the hardliners are using terrorism as an excuse to foment plans to attack Iraq.
951. concerned - 5/22/2002 3:39:59 PM
Because Bush has long insisted he had no inkling of the attacks, the disclosures touched off a media stampede in a capital long deprived of scandal.
Sorry, Left Media: it's official that we have a seriously scandal-deficient administration, since Newsweek is then forced to admit:
Even most of Bush’s critics said the president himself was mostly blameless in the blame game, at least when it came to the kind of briefing he received on Aug. 6.
Sorta throws a monkey wrench in jex's plan to blame continental drift on Bush. Now, is anyone on the Left going to claim that Bush was responsible for wrecking things here, going back to '93, as Newsweek describes it?:
The FBI was concerned about racial profiling. Moreover, it wasn’t used to gathering intelligence, especially domestically, given American sensitivities about intrusive government and civil liberties. Its intelligence-assessment system was almost laughably antiquated.
and this:
From the summer of 2000 on into the following year, sources said, the FBI was forced to shut down wiretaps of Qaeda-related suspects connected to the 1998 African embassy bombing investigation. “It was a major problem,” said one source familiar with the case, who estimated that 10 to 20 Qaeda wiretaps had to be shut down, as well as wiretaps into a separate New York investigation of Hamas. The effect was to stymie terror surveillance at exactly the moment it was needed most: requests from both Phoenix and Minneapolis for wiretaps were turned down.
If you can't wiretap Al Qaida, who can you wiretap?
952. CalGal - 5/23/2002 1:54:05 AM
Misreading Musharraf
"America is either with us or with the terrorists," Omar Abdullah, a rising star in India's political system, said mockingly in Parliament last week as details of the grisly Jammu raid spread.
The attack on an Indian military family housing area by three guerrillas identified in the Indian media as Pakistani citizens could hardly have been more inflammatory. Wives and children of Indian soldiers were butchered. A 2-month-old baby was machine-gunned to death. By coincidence or design, the attackers went to the very limit of the Indian military's tolerance.
Musharraf's own assessment of the consequences of such acts remains murky. He may believe that India does not have the will to attack. Or he may believe that Washington needs him too much in the war on al Qaeda and the Taliban to let India come after him. U.S. officials have given him grounds for thinking that.
Or Musharraf may be quite willing to see limited clashes begin in hopes of provoking international intervention that will aid his position in Kashmir, much as Yasser Arafat seeks to draw outside powers into his conflict with Israel.
953. concerned - 5/23/2002 3:02:15 AM
Admit it, Lefties. If the Bush Administration had seized the 9/11 hijackers before they could execute & subsequently instituted the current security plans, there'd be no end of squawking in the Mote by the Usual Suspects about supposed Bush Administration Fascism, Racism, Xenophobia, religious bigotry and on and on and on. What's worse, it'd be a mere echo of what Lefty Nutburgers elsewhere would be shrieking.
954. jexster - 5/23/2002 8:41:44 PM
ABC News Tonight
In the headlines Bush tells Europe he will save civilization
Admit what there TD?
Chicoms on the Red Planet are they???
Please.
Bush has declared himself defender of Western Civilization.
God help us all.
Nice ears you got there...
955. jexster - 5/23/2002 8:42:21 PM
Hitler said much the same thing....but Hitler had brains
956. CalGal - 5/24/2002 11:10:41 AM
Agent Complaints Lead F.B.I. Director to Ask for Inquiry
The F.B.I. director, Robert S. Mueller III, said today that he was ordering an internal inquiry into complaints by a senior agent in Minneapolis that officials at headquarters repeatedly held back agents in Minneapolis who sought to investigate Zacarias Moussaoui aggressively in the days before the Sept. 11 hijackings.
The agent, Coleen Rowley, general counsel in the Minneapolis office, also said in a detailed 13-page letter to the Congressional committee that is investigating the government's preparedness for the Sept. 11 attacks that Mr. Mueller had misrepresented the bureau's handling of Mr. Moussaoui's case after his arrest on immigration charges three weeks before the hijackings, according to officials who have reviewed her letter.
957. CalGal - 5/24/2002 11:42:09 AM
Wow. More details from the LA Times
Rowley's letter, sent Tuesday to FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III and congressional intelligence committee members, contained bureaucratic language laced with outrage: "When, in a desperate eleventh-hour measure to bypass the FBI HQ roadblock, the Minneapolis division undertook to directly notify the CIA's counterterrorist center, FBI HQ personnel chastised the Minneapolis agents for making the direct notification without their approval."
They tried to notify the CIA and were chastised?
On a separate front, Rowley also contended that Mueller and other FBI officials made misleading statements in recent weeks by claiming repeatedly that the FBI had no clear warning before Sept. 11 about the looming threat.
Rowley was particularly upset by Mueller's insistence in recent weeks that the bureau might have been able to take some action to prevent the tragedy if it had gotten more information. She and others in the Minneapolis office tried to reach Mueller to tell him that they thought he was skewing the facts, but the calls were either rejected or fell on deaf ears, she wrote.
"We faced the sad realization that [Mueller's] remarks indicated someone, possibly with your approval, had decided to circle the wagons at FBI headquarters in an apparent attempt to protect the FBI from embarrassment and the relevant FBI officials from scrutiny," Rowley wrote.
The Justice Department's inspector general's office will be reviewing her allegations to determine whether department policies or procedures were violated, but Justice Department officials say they have already confirmed portions of her narrative.
"The tone of her letter is a little over the top," according to an official who asked not to be identified, "but her facts are right."
958. jexster - 5/24/2002 1:34:56 PM
Jordan and probably Morocco advised U.S. and allied intelligence that Al Qaeda terrorists controlled by Osama bin Laden planned major airborne terrorist operations in the continental United States... The text stated clearly that a major attack was planned inside the continental United States. It said aircraft would be used. But neither hijacking, nor, apparently, precise timing nor targets were named. The code name of the operation was mentioned: in Arabic, Al Ourush al Kabir, 'The Big Wedding.'" In addition, French and Moroccan publications reported that "a Moroccan secret agent named Hassan Dabou succeeded in infiltrating Al Qaeda. Several weeks before Sept. 11, the story ran, he informed his chiefs in King Mohammed VI's royal intelligence service that Osama bin Laden's men were preparing 'large-scale operations in New York in the summer or autumn of 2001.'" Dabou came to the US to inform the Bush administration, and was given asylum and a new identity.
Its a Nice Day for a Big Wedding (Intl Herald Trib)
This stonewall is going to wind up just like the Chenron stonewall wherein we now know from just a smattering of documents, that the Bushies DO have something to hide after all.
Which of course is why they are trying to hide...
Makes sense I bet even to Dimwit Sickles
959. jexster - 5/24/2002 10:04:53 PM
This too...
Crisis Over!
Now that anti-Bush 9/11 recriminations have died down, so, too, can the imminent risk of terrorist attack.
We should all be thankful that Bush is hallucinating that he's going to save civilization from a 21st cent. Hitler.
960. joezan - 5/25/2002 10:17:37 AM
Finally, an issue Tipper can really sink her teeth into:
Bush admin. Driving US Citizens CRAZY!
...Americans want the information. We want to know what's going on. But then we want to be told what to do. And if you frighten someone, but you don't give them a solution to that frightened state, then you leave them anxious, frightened, wondering what to do, pulling on their inner reserves of resilience and resolve and being strong and united.
Well, I think Americans have shown that we are all of those things. But what is that we are supposed to do to prepare for the next attack should it happen?
ZAHN: So if your husband were president right now, what would he be doing differently?
GORE: He's not, and that's not the issue...
961. Property of Jesus - 5/25/2002 11:36:58 AM
Every day I thank God that Al Gore isn't president. The Gores give nothing but doubletalk
BTW, President Bush was just terrific this morning in a live 50-minute Q&A with Russian students in St. Petersburg.
He's hitting his mark, 4sure.
962. Cellar Door - 5/26/2002 10:32:04 AM
The Warning Signs Were Plentiful.
963. concerned - 5/27/2002 5:13:19 AM
Remember Pudboy? Instead of whacking off over RW 'terrorists' in the US, here's the type of thing he would have been better off creating:
964. concerned - 5/27/2002 5:16:17 AM
Re. 962 -
Hey, cllrdr - Your and Jexster's bullshit is 'plentiful', but does it mean anything?
965. OhioSTOPAS - 5/27/2002 8:37:00 AM
Re 963
Yeah, if only Clinton had paid more attention to Islamic terrorists, the World Trade Center might have been standing when he left office.
966. OhioSTOPAS - 5/27/2002 8:38:38 AM
And why didn't Clinton ban access to American financial markets for those nations and banks that didn't cooperate with money-laundering investigations? If only we could have compelled foreign banks to open their books! But Clowntoon dropped the ball.
967. CalGal - 5/27/2002 10:56:20 AM
That's a great map. But I thought the ones in Santa Clara had left a few years ago.
968. judithathome - 5/27/2002 11:53:28 AM
They probably moved to Dallas/Arlington area where housing is cheaper.
I feel so much safer after seeing that map. Not.
969. CalGal - 5/27/2002 12:27:07 PM
The Memo
970. jexster - 5/28/2002 8:59:05 PM
Talibees Al Qaeeeeda Plottin to Evil in Pakistan
I thought we won that war.
Maybe we should save US lives and $$$...unleash Gunga Din on the Moose-Sheriff Muslim Mob
971. jexster - 5/29/2002 10:33:18 AM
DID THE CIA LEAK THE NEWS ABOUT 9/11?
Memogate
972. jexster - 5/29/2002 11:00:56 AM
973. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 5/29/2002 12:29:09 PM
We have nothin' to worry 'bout, now that the Ruskies are in NATO!
974. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 5/29/2002 12:30:48 PM
. . . and Cheesey can use the 9/11 card that trumps all!
975. concerned - 5/29/2002 12:40:00 PM
Re. 973 -
Hey, what happened to all that LW rhetoric about the RW and its 'cold war mentality', anyway?
976. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 5/29/2002 12:44:12 PM
concerned- It's being recycled into plutonium for terrorist bombs and corporate exploitation of military/home security profiteering.
977. CalGal - 5/29/2002 5:43:03 PM
This thread is getting far too close to political hackery. Cease and desist.
Recorded Conversations Reveal Predictions of Attacks
Recorded conversations between a Muslim cleric from Yemen and the leader of a Milan mosque reveal what police said are predictions of the Sept. 11 terror attacks, including a boast of a ``terrifying'' operation by ``a madman,'' according to a newspaper report.
...
In one conversation, in the summer of 2000, the sheik tells the mosque leader, or imam: ``In the future, listen to the news and remember these words: `above the head.'''
The sheik says the action will be ``one of those strikes that you never forget.'' He added that it will be a ``terrifying thing, it will move from south to north, from east to west. He who made this plan is a madman, but a genius. It will turn you to ice.''
The sheik also says: ``Ah, yes, there are big clouds in the sky, there in that country, the fire is already lit and it's just waiting for the wing ... All the newspapers in the world will write about it.''
I dunno; it sounds pretty cheesy to me.
978. concerned - 5/29/2002 5:53:31 PM
Re. 977 -
Calgal -
Can't you tell when Moters are just relaxing? Chill.
979. robertjayb - 5/29/2002 5:58:21 PM
Where the gov't really screwed-up was in failing to reconstitute the intelligence unit that Robert Redford was part of back in 1975 in Three Days of the Condor.
980. CalGal - 5/29/2002 5:59:55 PM
Well back then they at least read the memos.
981. CalGal - 5/29/2002 6:15:51 PM
Like it or not, Bush will face many 9/11 investigations
The question of whether the Sept. 11 investigation will be conducted by the intelligence committee or by an independent commission is a false choice. There are other investigations on the way, completely separate from the intelligence panel or any as-yet-unformed commission.
...
The Judiciary Committtee has traditionally had oversight authority over the FBI and the Justice Department as a whole. Does anyone believe Leahy will not hold hearings at which Rowley will tell her story? Hearings at which new information will emerge about the FBI's mistakes, misjudgments, and perhaps worse? "The administration has been lobbying hard in the vain and ridiculous attempt to keep this in the intelligence committee," says one Senate aide. "It ain't gonna happen. It's in the total discretion of the chairman, and there is nothing — nothing — that is going to stand between Leahy and this investigation."
And it's not just Leahy. Committee Republicans Arlen Specter and Charles Grassley are also on board. And there will be others; even those conservative Republicans most alienated by Leahy's partisan treatment of the president's judicial nominees will not be inclined to fight Leahy on this one. The FBI's role in events leading to Sept. 11 is a perfectly legitimate topic of investigation, and it's likely that Republican senators will support the principle that the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee has a right to look into such matters.
982. Rama - 5/30/2002 9:40:58 AM
This is very creepy. But I suppose it will make jexter happy.
New Justice Department guidelines to be unveiled today will give FBI agents latitude to monitor Internet sites, libraries and religious institutions without first having to offer evidence of potential criminal activity, officials said yesterday.
983. jexster - 6/1/2002 11:59:44 AM
Thanks Rama ...
Must be my day...
This makes me deleriously happy...
Imagine for a moment that you're President George W. Bush. At some point in the next several months you will have to decide whether to overthrow Saddam Hussein--not just to threaten and saber-rattle and hope something gives, but actually to pull the trigger on what could be a very costly and risky military venture. How precisely will you make that decision?
It will almost certainly come down to a choice between which of two groups of advisers you choose to believe.
One side is comprised of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, most of the career military, nearly every Middle East expert at the State Department, and the vast majority of intelligence analysts and CIA operations officers who know the region and Commander Baba Jex of the Mote. These folks generally think that the idea of attacking Saddam is questionable at best, reckless at worst.
On the other side are a few dozen neoconservative think tank scholars and defense policy intellectuals and Danny Sickly
Architect of Bush's Saddam Bomb
Ooooo but he gassed his own people Danny Boy!
984. jexster - 6/1/2002 12:01:21 PM
"questionnable at best, reckless at worst"
Now who said those exact words six months back...
mmmm
mmmm
OH I KNOW
ME
985. ronski - 6/1/2002 5:39:10 PM
If the FBI wants to snoop on the lunatics the Saudis have packed Brooklyn and Detroit mosques with, it's fine with me.
986. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 6/1/2002 5:56:50 PM
Just came across this paragraph in Gore Vidal's new book :
The Bush administration, though eerily inept in all but its principal task, which is to exempt the rich from taxes, has casually torn up most of the treaties to which civilized nations subscribe—like the Kyoto Accords or the nuclear missile agreement with Russia. The Bushites go about their relentless pludering of the Treasury and now, thanks to Osama, Social Security (a supposedly untouchable trust fund), which like Lucky Strike green, has gone to war currently costing us $3 billion a month. They have also allowed the FBI and CIA either to run amok or not budge at all, leaving us, the very first "indispensable" and—at popular request—last global empire, rather like the Wizard of Oz doing his rather odd pretend-magic tricks while hoping not to be found out. Meanwhile, G. W. booms, "Either you are with us or you are the Terrorists." That's known as asking for it.
987. ronski - 6/1/2002 6:12:37 PM
That's one book I can do without reading this summer. Thanks for the tip.
988. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 6/1/2002 6:45:52 PM
Yeah, the truth can be very annoying sometimes.
989. ronski - 6/1/2002 8:00:05 PM
I don't deny that some of Vidal's criticism of the GOP and Bush is valid, but most of it is leftist garbage, and hackneyed to boot.
990. PincherMartin - 6/1/2002 10:14:11 PM
Vidal writes nothing but garbage about politics. Wizard's slice of one of his essays is a good example.
The Bush administration, though eerily inept in all but its principal task, which is to exempt the rich from taxes, has casually torn up most of the treaties to which civilized nations subscribe—like the Kyoto Accords or the nuclear missile agreement with Russia.
Only two nations -- Russia and the United States -- subscribed to the now defunct ABM Treaty. However, most European nations (what I suppose Vidal means by "civilized") did not want the U.S. to pull out of the treaty, saying it would provoke an arms race with Russia.
On that point, they have been proved spectacularly wrong. Russia/U.S. relations have never been better. Of course, Vidal doesn't mention that. I suppose he just wants the U.S. on the "civilized" side, and is much less concerned whether the "civilized" side is right.
991. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 6/1/2002 10:19:38 PM
"leftist garbage, and hackneyed to boot."
Now there's an astucious observation and articulate disputation--have you won a Pulitzer yet?
992. PincherMartin - 6/1/2002 10:22:58 PM
Now there's an astucious observation and articulate disputation--have you won a Pulitzer yet?
No, Ronski hasn't, but then neither has Vidal.
So on the Pulitzer scale of merit, they're even.
993. ronski - 6/1/2002 10:55:47 PM
Well, with Goodwin off the committee, my chances have improved immensely. But with their insult to the Bergen Record's Tom Franklin, rejecting his famous (and politically incorrect, i.e., patriotic, photo of the firefighters raising the American flag at Ground Zero), I give a shit.
994. ronski - 6/1/2002 10:57:58 PM
Pincher,
If you would indulge me, you mentioned some time back a book about China's threat to U.S. interests. Would you be so good as to repeat the title and author? Thanks.
995. PincherMartin - 6/1/2002 11:03:52 PM
Ronski --
I've read so many books on China, I can't recall which one you're talking about. I vaguely remember a short exchange between the two of us on China. Could you be more specific what we were talking about? Maybe that will jog my memory.
996. ronski - 6/1/2002 11:32:56 PM
Pincher,
It was perhaps six months ago. We were discussing whether China posed a serious threat to U.S. interests, both economically and militarily. My take, as I recall, was that China is primarily concerned about Taiwan, for reasons that are first emotional, and secondarily related to the benefits that might accrue to the mainland should they absorb Taiwan's economic infrastructure, as they no doubt looked forward to with Hong Kong. But I also question whether China has either the interest or longterm capability of challening the U.S. (and Japan) militarily in the Pacific. That is what I'm most interested in: whether or not the U.S. and China are on a collision course militarily over issues that are essentially economic, much as the U.S. and the U.K. clashed with Japan in the late 30s.
You and another poster (I forget who) were discussing a book that suggested the U.S. was seriously threatened by China.
997. ronski - 6/1/2002 11:45:15 PM
(But I would add that anything you think worthy of reading that warns of a future confrontation between China and the U.S. I would be interested in reading, now that I have a little more time to spare than I did a few months ago.)
998. concerned - 6/2/2002 1:19:55 AM
Danes Roll Back Welcome Mat
excerpt:
The law drew condemnation from neighboring Sweden, where asylum applications shot up 68 percent in the first three months of this year largely because of Denmark's impending crackdown.
Swedish Immigration Minister Mona Sahlin accused Denmark of "demonizing refugees" and shoving the problem onto its EU partners. The number of applicants in Denmark dropped by 38 percent in the same three months.
Belgium and France also have condemned the changes and had called for moderation from Denmark, which takes over the EU presidency at the end of this month.
I don't see that Denmark requiring immigrants to have a working knowledge of their language and culture is a negative thing.
999. concerned - 6/2/2002 1:24:51 AM
US Forces in Abu Sayyaf Pursuit Operations Mulled
1000. concerned - 6/2/2002 1:25:14 AM
Hey. Looky dis.
1001. judithathome - 6/2/2002 1:41:51 AM
Congratulations, concerned!
1002. concerned - 6/2/2002 1:45:28 AM
thankee thankee. Never thought I'd snag the first millennial in a CG hosted thread:)
1003. godlessclif - 6/2/2002 7:13:33 AM
Well Denmark is not a multicultural society.
As Europe becomes more like the USA there will ahve to be more tolerance as the populations become more mobile. It is the price you pay for the economic benefits of mobile capital and labor.
1004. godlessclif - 6/2/2002 7:14:51 AM
No edit? wow are my typos going to be bad here.
1005. godlessclif - 6/2/2002 7:17:49 AM
If you have international law to settle disputes no nation is a threat, not even China. If you ignore international law like the Bush Regime is doing every nation becomes a threat.
1006. Andonly - 6/2/2002 9:59:45 AM
Is this the real Godless from ages past, or a Vile Imposter?
1007. jexster - 6/2/2002 10:10:33 AM
Most detainees at the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have no affiliation with al Qaeda or the Taliban and are largely young Arab men who rushed to Afghanistan with visions of assisting the needy or fighting American troops, according to a lawyer who represents scores of the captives.
Inflamed by televised images of deprivation, the men now detained left jobs and families to go to Afghanistan, said Najeeb Al-Nauimi, a lawyer who represents about 60 of the 384 captives at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. Once in Afghanistan, the great majority never touched a gun or got anywhere near Osama bin Laden's training camps, he said.
Depty. Dawg Fucks Up Again
1008. jexster - 6/2/2002 10:11:26 AM
Which of course is why the Vile Imposter wants to play all of his games in secret.
1009. godlessclif - 6/2/2002 12:31:18 PM
If I was a vile imposter i would have chosen the nickname vile_imposter. I am godless and my real name is Clif
1010. godlessclif - 6/2/2002 12:34:00 PM
I am surprised Ashcroft let them have a lawyer. Is Bush still denying the people who enforce the Geneva Convention access to the X-Ray concentration camp? I know he still refuses to let them have fair trials.
1011. godlessclif - 6/2/2002 12:43:32 PM
Ashcroft is telling Wolfe Blitzer on CNN right now that the FBI won't abuse it's new powers. Wolfe pointed out how the FBI abused lesser powers in the 1970s. Ashcroft said the new directives under the patriot act "admonish" the FBI not to abuse their powers for political ends.
Well, as long as they have been "admonished" we ahve nothing to woryy about. Ashcroft said he wants to abn all sites on the web thta have bomb making instruction. I wonder if that includes banning all chemistry books?
1012. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 6/2/2002 1:21:44 PM
1013. robertjayb - 6/2/2002 3:09:45 PM
Who knew? The CIA, that's who...
— NEW YORK (Reuters) - Months before the Sept. 11 attacks, the CIA knew two of the hijackers were in the United States and that they were connected to the al Qaeda organization, Newsweek reported on Sunday.
According to the report that will hit newsstands on Monday, the intelligence was never passed along to the FBI, which now asserts that if it had known, agents could have uncovered the terrorist plot.
Newsweek said the CIA became aware of one of the terrorists, Nawaf Alhazmi, a few days after he attended a secret planning meeting of Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda in Malaysia in January 2000.
1014. jexster - 6/2/2002 3:10:44 PM
"Something else was eating George Bush when he chewed out David Gregory [in Paris]. And it was probably a demonstration at, of all places, the Pentagon.
It was a demonstration of cold feet on the part of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who leaked to Post Pentagon correspondent Thomas E. Ricks that they, just like the rabble in the streets of Europe, thought that invading Iraq was a chancy affair that would involve a large commitment of troops and casualties. And victory would bring only the unappetizing prospect of occupying Baghdad for an extended period…
Retired rear admiral Gene Carroll was pleased but not surprised by the bombshell from the Pentagon. Despite the drumbeat from the right, he says uniformed men like to plan precisely for situations where men will be fighting. "Amateurs talk about strategy, professionals talk about logistics,' he says. It was evident that 'we wouldn't have the allies, supplies and bases that were available to us in the Gulf War.'
Mary McGrory
1015. jexster - 6/2/2002 3:12:03 PM
And so too pleased but not surprised...Panty Waist Powell
1016. jexster - 6/2/2002 7:05:38 PM
I Thought We'd Won
CAIRO (Reuters) - The pan-Arab daily al-Hayat published Sunday what it said was a statement from an al Qaeda spokesman warning the United States to get ready for another attack.
"What is coming to the Americans will not, by the will of God, be less than what has come," the newspaper quoted al Qaeda spokesman Sulaiman bu Ghaith as saying in a statement.
"So beware, America. Get ready. Get prepared. Put on the safety belt," he said in a statement al-Hayat said was published on the www.alneda.com Web site.
1017. godlessclif - 6/2/2002 7:32:03 PM
The Bush Regime has put out that double speak. Cheney claims simultaneously that:
1.we did not know about the 9/11 attack
2. We warned you the 9/11 attack was coming.
3. we won the war on terrorism
4.we have to keep taking casualties and spending about a billion a month on the war
and 5. Another enemy attack killing from thousands to millions of American civilians is inevitable.
And if you critisize Big Brother for the illogic you're called a traitor
1018. OhioSTOPAS - 6/2/2002 8:05:37 PM
Is this really the legendary godlessclif? Welcome!
1019. jexster - 6/2/2002 8:44:01 PM
This shit's JUST beginning....If I were Bush or his caretaker I wouldn't want an investigation either...
The Hijackers Bush Let Escape
They ain't gon be sellin none dem "WarLord in action" postcards much longer
1020. jexster - 6/2/2002 8:50:40 PM
If Cheney were at Halliburton and the company fucked up like THE Company...his ass would have been gone months ago....
Come to think of it...he's fortunate that he's NOT at Halliburton....SEC investigations aren't much fun.
1021. godlessclif - 6/2/2002 9:39:18 PM
I never considered myself legendary. In fact I am nervous trying to live up to that.
I was on the Slate boards when it was free and chats were new and there were no rules and I beat up on some conservative with humor, sarcasm and logic.
I was also the only atheist on Slate then, or the only one who would admit it.
Now wherever I go I have to face this big reputation from those days. I feel like Johnny Ringo. I am just a regular guy trying to make it in a screwed up world.
What does the cryptic message "Do you have toys to put away" mean? I keep seeing it and it seems to be accusatory.
1022. bubbaette - 6/2/2002 10:08:17 PM
Hi Godlesscliff. Your legend does proceed you. Putting away one's toys means closing any html tags.
I consider myself an atheist, but it's not a big deal to me -- it's just the absence of a belief.
1023. godlessclif - 6/2/2002 10:30:21 PM
I am one of Darwin's Witnesses myself.
We go door to door to proselytise and hand out leaflets and read scripture from Darwin's Origin of the Species and the books of Stephen Jay Gould in hopes of converting the lost. Without the end of the world or an ever burning hell to threaten people with it is tough.|:>) toys
1024. bubbaette - 6/2/2002 11:17:27 PM
Hmmm. Ostracism has worked well for some movements but I guess you have to have a sort of critical mass to begin with.
I'm a Southerner, where it's considered downright unsociable not to be a Christian. To tell people that you have no religion can lead to a whole range of consequences -- none positive. These can range from repeated attempts at conversion to reduced upward mobility at work. Worse still are the attempts at conversion at work. Which is why in my personal life I avoid the topic and make non-committal noises when others talk about their religion.
Did you see 60 Minutes tonight? I didn't know what to make of it. Evidently Iraq has one of the co-conspirators of the first WTC bombing and has offered to turn him over to the US. The U.S., though the guy is on a most-wanted list and has a 25 million reward on his head has declined to take him.
1025. concerned - 6/3/2002 1:29:07 AM
Are Lefties who were yammering about 'profiling' pre-9/11 qualified to criticize the Bush Administration's terrorist responses?
Just wondering.
1026. concerned - 6/3/2002 1:35:42 AM
If you have international law to settle disputes no nation is a threat, not even China. If you ignore international law like the Bush Regime is doing every nation becomes a threat.
The 'reasoning' above assumes, of course, that the only major nation which could conceivably ignore international law is the US.
Hoo-boy.
1027. concerned - 6/3/2002 1:39:03 AM
I'm just waiting for some on the Left to argue that Christianity is more of a threat to civilization than Islamism.
1028. godlessclif - 6/3/2002 3:06:18 AM
I have faced the same thing. Christians talk about how tolerant they are but you cannot say you are an atheist at work or you will be faced with the choice of converting or being fired or dead ended in your career. Christians get really hateful, vindictive and angry when you won't convert.
Christians have been taught all atheists never heard the "Word of God" or else athiests are morons. When they find out you know more about Christianity and Jesus than they do and have still rejected the idea, it really threatens them.
Let's take this to a religion thread Bubbaette.
1029. joezan - 6/3/2002 6:49:15 AM
Oh, how I've missed Cliffie's wacky tales of Christian subjugation of the unenlightened!
Please, Clif - tell the one about how the Christian kids regularly beat up the atheist kids in your HS while the teachers laughed.
1030. jexster - 6/3/2002 10:09:20 AM
Mullah Omar Still Alive - Afghan Official
1031. bubbaette - 6/3/2002 10:27:32 AM
I'll take my grade school teacher's conversion attempt to the Religion thread.
1032. concerned - 6/3/2002 11:26:48 AM
Re. 1028 -
That's pure crap. You can hardly find a workplace in the US with more than a dozen employees which has some who are not Christians, and nothing is ever made of it. Perhaps godless ought to consider working at larger establishments than filling stations in the deep Democrat South.
1033. concerned - 6/3/2002 11:28:18 AM
Re. 1028 -
correction to my last
That's pure crap. You can hardly find a workplace in the US with more than a dozen employees which doesn't have some who are not Christians, and nothing is ever made of it. Perhaps godless ought to consider working at larger establishments than filling stations in the deep Democrat South.
moderater - please delete 1032.
1034. Wombat - 6/3/2002 11:29:52 AM
Concerned:
I began to ignore godlessclif during the Fray days, and plan to continue now. I urge you to do the same. Knowing you, however, you'll elevate him to be the leftist paradigm that you inveigh against ad nauseam.
1035. concerned - 6/3/2002 11:34:34 AM
Thanks for the suggestion. Of course, there's fun to be had if he can be got into his 'sledgehammer' mode. Remember that?
1036. jexster - 6/3/2002 5:34:19 PM
The Bushies are leakin like a sieve!
The CIA is striking back, leakin a memo to CNN showing that they told the FBI all.
1037. godlessclif - 6/4/2002 4:02:09 AM
My fans welcomed me, now my enemies gather.
Of course we are to beleive Athiest are never fire or denied promtion by Christian fundies in the workplace.
we are to beieve Christian's love us while Wombat, concerned and joesan gather to force an atheist off the chat.
My forced out firing, by Christian fundies, because I would not convert, was from a California Corporation in the Fortune 500.
I will name it, Varian Corporation-1970, owned by Jewish families, while Christian Fundies in middle management purged it subsidiaries or jews, atheists and heretics.
1038. godlessclif - 6/4/2002 4:32:28 AM
1029. joezan - 6/3/02 11:49:15 AM
Oh, how I've missed Cliffie's wacky tales of Christian subjugation of the unenlightened!
Please, Clif - tell the one about how the Christian kids regularly beat up the atheist kids in your HS while the teachers laughed.
What a nice personal attack on me, Rosie Joe Zan.
the teachers did not laugh, but the Christians did gang up on me and beat me up because I was not a Christian, the only atheist. Maybe becuse they did not have a jew to beat up in the suburbs.
Strange I never had that problem when my family lived in the slums of Dorchestor. The fights there were for turf and money, not religion like the suburbs.
But it was the Christian fundie kids and not me that were unenlightened, ignorant.
Thank Bubberette, you know the truth about them.
1039. godlessclif - 6/4/2002 4:33:54 AM
Rose Joe Jesus: Rosie Joe Zan, how many sock puppet pseudonyms do you need to win an argument?
1040. OhioSTOPAS - 6/4/2002 5:37:26 AM
Clif: Property of Jesus (fka Rosetta Stone) and Joezan are two different persons, although they apparently come from the same Borg hive. (The Rush Lim-Borg?)
1041. OhioSTOPAS - 6/4/2002 6:01:47 AM
On the talk shows last Sunday, did anyone ask top cop John Ashcroft when he's going to catch the anthrax mailer? Given the small number of people who can even get their hands on the high-grade anthax mailed to Senators Daschle and Leahy, you'd think the perpetrator could be identified by now.
The right-wing political position regarding this matter, as stated in the Weekly Standard and most recently in the Wall Street Journal, is that the law enforcement professionals' theory that the killer is a disgruntled American lone nut is a delusion, and that this is the work of a Muslim (likely Iraqi) terrorist. Uh-huh. Of course it COULDN'T have been an off-his-rocker right-winger who tried to try to knock off two Democratic Senators and restore Republican control to the Senate.
1042. Daniel Sickles - 6/4/2002 9:33:54 AM
Deer Mr. Dasshle and Misher. Lahey
Here is some talc fer u. Aplly genrosly. Regards.
Chuck Pikring
What We No Hear This?
1043. CalGal - 6/4/2002 10:41:10 AM
I'm not sure I understand Daniel's post. I thought we had heard it.
1044. judithathome - 6/4/2002 10:50:03 AM
Well, if we hadn't, we couldn't "read all about it" anyhow unless we were members of Salon.
1045. jexster - 6/4/2002 11:02:34 AM
Egypt Warned US About 911
"If we only knew, we'd have taken action to stop it..."
1046. Daniel Sickles - 6/4/2002 11:21:58 AM
The current mini-drama of "While We Slept" is pathetic in it smallness. There was clearly a pre-September 11th bureaucratic blase', characterized by the turf wars, pc small-mindedness, miscommunications, and incompetence. Not particularly shocking in an era where top agents divulge our most secret information for a yacht and some lap dances.
Save some fingers to point for the next atrocity, and the next, and the next, for they will be whoppers, and they will also completely re-draw how we assess internal security and the lengths to which we will go to protect ourselves.
As it is now, the Rowley memo and the Isikoff exposes are no more than footballs for leverage and advantage. You still get the same hesitants and mollycoddlers, worried about privacy and civil liberties and the like. When Mueller and Ashcroft and company step up the domestic surveillance, and nothing happens, oh, will the wails be heard.
In fact, remember the wails far closer to 9/11? Not the ones coming from people as they hurled themselves from the towers, but the other ones, when the horror became more distant, and the indignities heaped on immigrants and college students were too much to bear.
We ain't seen nothing yet, and the assignation of blame (with glee) is evidence thereof.
1047. judithathome - 6/4/2002 11:30:02 AM
What do you expect when the leaders of the country are doing the same thing? I guess you have the same disdain for those who were and are so quick to heap blame on the previous administration.
1048. Daniel Sickles - 6/4/2002 11:37:56 AM
juditha
I have and had disdain for any jackass who seeks to distill foreign policy and security choices to simplistic mantras like "Clinton could have gotten bin Laden from Sudan" or "We need to know what the president knew and when he knew it" (quickly modified after tracking polls showed that this was not the way to go). It's the language of the drunk, bigoted fan.
1049. zojak quafeth - 6/4/2002 11:42:54 AM
(applause)
hear, hear.
sorry.
carry on.....
1050. Daniel Sickles - 6/4/2002 11:46:00 AM
For example, hectoring like a jackass about What We Could Have Done While We Slept is the work of a chump.
What is so great about the Rowley memo is that it highlights what needs to be done in the future by intelligently but forcefully explaining what was done poorly in the past.
It is forward thinking.
Lost in almost all partisan criticism - either here amongst the psychotics and apparatchiks, or one the chat circuit - is a suggestion as to moving forward.
Why?
Gutlessness. They want the freedom to criticize for partisan advantage no matter the actions taken.
1051. Daniel Sickles - 6/4/2002 11:47:24 AM
Moving Forward
Uncuff the FBI
Congress must undo the Church Committee's damage.
BY MARK RIEBLING
Tuesday, June 4, 2002 12:01 a.m. EDT
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
The FBI's failure to aggressively investigate Zacarias Moussaoui prior to Sept. 11, disclosed last month by FBI agent Coleen Rowley, highlights the need for immediate repeal of congressional limits on national security surveillance.
One would think that agents charged with protecting us from a "dirty nuke" would enjoy the same discretionary search authority as a patrolman who makes a traffic stop. In fact, they have less. If a patrolman pulls you over for weaving between lanes, and smells bourbon on your breath, he does not need a warrant to give you a breath test. But if a FBI agent learns that you are a member of a known terrorist group, and that you behaved suspiciously at a flight school, he must jump through bureaucratic hoops of fire to search your laptop computer.
Yet even the modest reforms enacted since Sept. 11 have provoked dire warnings of the death of American civil liberties--and not just on the left. William Safire, writing in yesterday's New York Times, argues that Attorney General John Ashcroft, by allowing the FBI to attend public events or to surf the Internet without evidence of a crime being committed, has "gutted guidelines put in place a generation ago to prevent the abuse of police power by the federal government."
1052. Daniel Sickles - 6/4/2002 11:48:07 AM
What are these hallowed "guidelines," and why do we have them? The answer lies in the post-Watergate paranoia of the 1970s, when a Senate select committee, chaired by Sen. Frank Church of Idaho, learned details of FBI spying on American citizens. During the 1960s, the Church Committee alleged, the FBI had been a rogue elephant, engaging in unconstitutional surveillance of antiwar protestors and civil-rights activists, including Martin Luther King Jr. Outraged by this alleged pattern of abuse, a group of liberal Democratic senators, led by Ted Kennedy, decided to limit federal spying power.
Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (known as FISA), which President Carter signed in 1978, FBI applications for counterterrorist wiretaps, searches or other snooping must be forwarded by the attorney general to a special court. To obtain a warrant from the court, however, the attorney general cannot simply aver that the suspect belongs to a terrorist group. Rather, there must be "probable cause" that he has actually committed, or is conspiring to commit, a terrorist act. Since such evidence can seldom be gathered without some form of eavesdropping, FISA creates a classic Catch-22.
While no one in the FBI is saying it aloud, the truth is these FISA guidelines may well have prevented the FBI from foiling the Sept. 11 attacks. Agents knew that Moussaoui, detained in Minneapolis on immigration violations, had spent two months in Pakistan, where al Qaeda recruited many operatives. They knew also that he had attended a flight school, where he showed unusual interest in whether cabin doors could be opened during flight. Under the strict provisions of FISA, however, the bureau lacked "probable cause" to hack Moussaoui's computer or tap his phone. Consequently, the FBI lost its best chance to learn of Moussaoui's links to the other Sept. 11 conspirators before they could strike.
1053. Daniel Sickles - 6/4/2002 11:48:40 AM
Civil libertarians do not deny that FISA hampers our ability to counter terrorists. Citing the abuses alleged by the Church Committee, however, they argue that chronic insecurity is the price we must pay to preserve our liberties.
But the U.S. was not a fascist dictatorship before Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter rode to the rescue. Our current surveillance rules are neither constitutionally required, nor traditionally American. They were observed neither by Mr. Kennedy's elder brothers, nor by any presidents or attorneys general before the Carter presidency. For the first two centuries of our country's history, threats to our national security were countered without warrant. And the Supreme Court, from Olmstead v. U.S. (1928) to U.S. v. U.S. District Court (1972), has allowed warrantless surveillance in national security, as opposed to criminal, investigations.
Yes, the executive branch has sometimes abused this mandate (most famously with the surveillance of Dr. King), but not as much as the Church Committee would have us believe. The FBI's spying was not the creation of right-wing reactionaries, and it was not systematically targeted at the innocent grassroots left. It was begun by our most liberal of presidents, FDR, who ordered the surveillance of fascist sympathizers in 1936. And the controversial Counterintelligence Programs (Cointelpro) were actually born in the Kennedy administration, as an attempt to disrupt the Ku Klux Klan. The FBI also disrupted "Black Nationalist Hate Groups," including the Black Panthers. This was not political repression; it was a (largely successful) effort to deal with violent, extremist groups.
1054. CalGal - 6/4/2002 11:49:19 AM
I don't understand Daniel's followup, either. But then Daniel tends to lump "what did the President know?" (a stupid question) with "What did the FBI know?" (an entirely relevant question).
As I said a while back, if the FBI had agreed on the danger of terrorists in flight training, brainstormed solutions, and reluctantly concluded that they couldn't do anything because of civil liberties concerns, the American people could look themselves square in the mirror and acknowledge they were guilty as charged. Or at least that this was a relevant concern.
They didn't get to that point. Now, it is possible that all the stonewalling had that direct concern at the bottom of it, but I think the more accurate accusation is that the FBI always felt safer doing nothing. It is a common mindset and a nearly reasonable one, given the vagaries of politics and the public.
I do think the proposed fixes are bizarrely disconnected, though.
1055. Daniel Sickles - 6/4/2002 11:49:23 AM
These countersubversion programs did lead to one real tragedy. In 1970, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, with the approval of President Nixon, leaked to the press rumors that actress Jean Seberg was carrying the child of Black Panther leader Bobby Seale. (Wiretaps had disclosed their affair.) Seberg was ruined, her baby died in premature birth, and she eventually committed suicide.
The evil of the Seberg case, however, was not that the FBI collected information without a warrant, but that it improperly leaked that information. The proper cure, therefore, is not FISA. The real remedy, as Sen. Malcolm Wallop noted in 1982, is "punishment of those who abuse their trust." There are laws on the books for that. The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 prohibits divulgence of wiretap contents outside the federal establishment. The Patriot Act, signed by President Bush last October, tightens these rules.
The Patriot Act also loosens some of the FISA restrictions. FBI agents may now conduct "sneak and peek" searches when notice of a search would adversely impact a probe. This expanded power, however, does not provide authority to seize tangible evidence or intercept communications. FBI field agents are still bedeviled by the need to obtain a warrant.
Given the looming threat of terrorist attack, perhaps with weapons of mass destruction, it's vital that policy makers not be cowed by the ghosts of a false history into providing us with less than the maximum protection permitted by the Constitution. That protection requires total repeal of FISA--and ruthless punishment of any officials who abuse our most sacred trust.
1056. CalGal - 6/4/2002 11:50:31 AM
Daniel, have you read the FBI "whistleblower" memo?
1057. Daniel Sickles - 6/4/2002 11:51:40 AM
I have.
1058. CalGal - 6/4/2002 12:12:02 PM
From the memo:
Notably also, the actual search warrant obtained on September 11th did not include the French intelligence information. Therefore, the only main difference between the information being submitted to FBIHQ from an early date which HQ personnel continued to deem insufficient and the actual criminal search warrant which a federal district judge signed and approved on September 11th, was the fact that, by the time the actual warrant was obtained, suspected terrorists were known to have highjacked planes which they then deliberately crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. To say then, as has been iterated numerous times, that probable cause did not exist until after the disasterous event occurred, is really to acknowledge that the missing piece of probable cause was only the FBI's (FBIHQ's) failure to appreciate that such an event could occur.
1059. Daniel Sickles - 6/4/2002 12:23:35 PM
Er. So?
1060. CalGal - 6/4/2002 12:27:28 PM
From your article:
To obtain a warrant from the court, however, the attorney general cannot simply aver that the suspect belongs to a terrorist group. Rather, there must be "probable cause" that he has actually committed, or is conspiring to commit, a terrorist act.
1061. Daniel Sickles - 6/4/2002 12:30:03 PM
And?
1062. CalGal - 6/4/2002 12:44:19 PM
And this means that Reibling's premise is flawed. That the FBI isn't suffering from an inability to get warrants for probable cause, that they got a warrant with less information than they had--and then there's his failure to mention the fact that the FBI actually doctored the warrant just to make sure it didn't go through the first time.
1063. Daniel Sickles - 6/4/2002 12:59:52 PM
One that suggests a federal judge would evaluate a warrant the same before 9/11 and mere hours after the attack is simply beyond my ken to understand.
Think proactive. Think the Judge Lamberths of tomorrow, when they are more likely to revert to Church-era scrutiny, as opposed to when a warrant is issued for their signature while bodies still crisp on the New York pavement.
On the morning of September 11th, Colleen Rowley could have gotten a federal judge to approve her fart.
No need to dick around the margins. Do you support the repeal of the Church-era standards or not?
1064. CalGal - 6/4/2002 1:48:40 PM
One that suggests a federal judge would evaluate a warrant the same before 9/11 and mere hours after the attack is simply beyond my ken to understand.
Please read my quote from the memo again, specifically: To say then, as has been iterated numerous times, that probable cause did not exist until after the disasterous event occurred, is really to acknowledge that the missing piece of probable cause was only the FBI's (FBIHQ's) failure to appreciate that such an event could occur.
The missing piece of probable cause would be, in this case, the judge's failure to appreciate that such an event could occur. I assumed--perhaps wrongly--you read that the first time. Probable cause did exist. There were indeed people who anticipated the risk of such an event--namely, the Minneapolis field office. So if it is beyond your ken, that's fine for you and those like you a tad too firmly grounded in the actual, not the probable and the possible. But to say that it is beyond everyone's ken is clearly incorrect.
Also, the FBI HQ deliberately removed the known terrorist associations from the warrant, which means that they specifically eliminated a key aspect of probable cause. Presumably a judge would consider known terrorist connections in a different light. This known terrorist connection wasn't even required in the second application, post 9/11. But before 9/11 it would have strengthened the warrant considerably. Yet it was removed.
It's hard to argue that the FBI chafed under Congressional restrictions when they were so regularly applying their own.
1065. CalGal - 6/4/2002 1:49:05 PM
Do you support the repeal of the Church-era standards or not?
I'm not "dicking around" the margins. I'm objecting to the utter lack of support for your case, based on your proffer of an article that completely misses the point.
I believe in applying the right fix to the right problem. There are reasons to consider repealing Church era standards. The FBI's failure as documented by Rowley's memo is not one of them.
1066. Daniel Sickles - 6/4/2002 1:51:34 PM
That's enough for me.
1067. godlessclif - 6/4/2002 1:54:25 PM
The Patriot Act also loosens some of the FISA restrictions. FBI agents may now conduct "sneak and peek" searches when notice of a search would adversely impact a probe. This expanded power, however, does not provide authority to seize tangible evidence or intercept communications. FBI field agents are still bedeviled by the need to obtain a warrant.
You do realize the sneak peak law would have made the Watergate Break-in legal if Gordon Liddy had gotten a warrant.
1068. Daniel Sickles - 6/4/2002 1:56:23 PM
Probable cause did exist.
From Isikoff and Klaidman:
Nevertheless, in the wake of the Sept. 11 attack, the rejection of the FISA warrant has produced tension between field agents in Minneapolis and their Justice Department and FBI superiors in Washington. Officials in Washington are adamant that there was insufficient grounds to approve the warrant based on what was produced by Minneapolis agents. “There does not seem to be any disagreement that the legal standards [for a FISA warrant] weren’t met,” said one top U.S. law enforcement official. The law requires the bureau to show evidence that the suspect is an “agent” of a foreign power or terrorist group, something the Minneapolis field agents never had, the officials said.
But other law enforcement officials are equally insistent that a more aggressive probe of Moussaoui—when combined with other intelligence in the possession of U.S. agencies—might have yielded sufficient clues about the impending plot. “The question being asked here is if they put two and two together, they could have gotten a lot more information about the guy—if not stopped the hijacking,” said one investigator.
Perhaps it did, perhaps it did not. Unlike you, I don't presume to know with certitude. It is very subjective, and given Lambreth's comments, it should be debatable. Save for you, but your assuredness explains your errors.
1069. Daniel Sickles - 6/4/2002 1:57:44 PM
cliff
Why, you're correct! Now, have a biscuit and I'll be with you in a minute.
There's a good man.
1070. CalGal - 6/4/2002 2:00:38 PM
Daniel,
I'm glad it's enough for you, but I am still curious as to how you incorporate the FBI deliberately weakening the warrant application into your scenario?
1071. Daniel Sickles - 6/4/2002 2:05:25 PM
Cal
See above
Adios.
1072. OhioSTOPAS - 6/4/2002 2:18:33 PM
The article quoted in Message # 1051 et seq, in order to make its dubious argument for "immediate repeal of congressional limits on national security surveillance," I think glosses over the different statutory treatment of citizens and foreigners in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq). The evil addressed and remedied by the Church Committee, surveillance of United States citizens based on little more than their exercise of First Amendment rights, has nothing to do with the case of Zacarias Moussari.
As a non-U.S. citizen, Moussari would meet the statutory definition of "Agent of a foreign power" if he "acts for on behalf of a foreign power which engages in clandestine intelligence . . . contrary to the interests of the United States . . . when the circumstances . .. indicate that such person may engage in such activities in the United States .. ." (And the definition of "foreign power" includes "a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor.")
The Moussari case does not justify a repeal of statutory limits on surveillance of United States citizens by the federal government.
1073. Daniel Sickles - 6/4/2002 2:21:22 PM
What will?
1074. Daniel Sickles - 6/4/2002 2:26:08 PM
I mean, when the next atrocity occurs, and the standard daily ass-covering and advantage-garnering gets old in the wake of a dirty bomb in Cleveland, will the statutory limits on surveillance of United States citizens be justified?
Mind you, I'm not suggesting that our good and true CIA and FBI would have cracked this case if only unshackled from the obstinance of federal judges. At their pre-9/11 state, the agencies were woefully unprepared.
I'm hoping they are going to become better prepared. I'd hate to see outdated domestic hindrances get in the way.
1075. CalGal - 6/4/2002 2:27:30 PM
Perhaps it did, perhaps it did not. Unlike you, I don't presume to know with certitude. It is very subjective, and given Lambreth's comments, it should be debatable. Save for you, but your assuredness explains your errors.
Given how regularly you misunderstand me (and complain about it), couldn't you incorporate that possibility into the picture? I am not speaking in assurance for the judge or the FBI on the definition of "probable cause". I am saying the same thing as Rowley--that the situation itself was identical before and after 9/11. That the announcement that "no one could have anticipated this" was incorrect, that people did anticipate this, and were worried about it. That these people were more prescient than those who actually required an ash heap where the WTC towers used to be is, of course, a given.
I did see above. Isikoff's piece does not mention that the FBI HQ deliberately removed or downplayed evidence that they did have. So while it may be true that they didn't have probable cause, the FBI's actions suggest that they thought there was probable cause and changed the wording of the affadavit to better ensure that a warrant wasn't issued.
1076. godlessclif - 6/4/2002 2:29:51 PM
A little condescending Daniel. I am sure some of the judges Bush is appointing would be glad to sign a sneak and peak for DNC headquarters. Strange Justices, as Jane Meyer or Jill Abramson might refer to them. I realize cal gal is more fun to talk with, I'll just leave you two alone.
1077. Daniel Sickles - 6/4/2002 2:31:00 PM
Cal
You first said Probable cause did exist. Now you say while it may be true that they didn't have probable cause.
You may be assigning blame to the wrong party for the regularity of misunderstanding.
1078. Daniel Sickles - 6/4/2002 2:31:42 PM
cliff
Only a little? I'd hoped to be really condescending.
1079. rubberducky - 6/4/2002 2:34:01 PM
What will?
i suspect when citizens (a la OK City) collude with foreign terrorists to try and have another 9/11.
1080. CalGal - 6/4/2002 2:39:09 PM
Daniel,
a) stop toying with Cliff. He's actually on topic, you aren't.
b) I should have said "while a judge might not have granted them probable cause...". I thought it was obvious; I forgot your literalism.
In any event, you have not yet answered the issue of the FBI HQ changing the affadavit to weaken it.
1081. CalGal - 6/4/2002 2:41:29 PM
I mean, when the next atrocity occurs, and the standard daily ass-covering and advantage-garnering gets old in the wake of a dirty bomb in Cleveland, will the statutory limits on surveillance of United States citizens be justified?
But for now, why bring it up, since if Ohio is correct it doesn't apply here?
1082. godlessclif - 6/4/2002 2:46:46 PM
One more thing Daniel. It was not the judges that killed the FISA warrant, It was chief of counter terrorism Dale Watson, ref. Washington Post at FBI headquarters in Washington that weakened the warrant by not mentioning the word terrorist. What we conspiracy theorists want to know is why.
Was there some pressure to lay off the Saudi's because of the Bush oil policy? Did the Saudi lobby speak?
I think Bin Laden was very clever to choose Saudi citizens as his suicide bombers and not Palestinians or Iraqis.
I think we have to ask why the warrant was weakened and the words "Known Terrorist associations" taken out of the warrant.
I notice they jumped on French Citizen of morrocan descent Moussaoui pretty fast, while laying off the Saudis.
1083. godlessclif - 6/4/2002 2:46:49 PM
One more thing Daniel. It was not the judges that killed the FISA warrant, It was chief of counter terrorism Dale Watson, ref. Washington Post at FBI headquarters in Washington that weakened the warrant by not mentioning the word terrorist. What we conspiracy theorists want to know is why.
Was there some pressure to lay off the Saudi's because of the Bush oil policy? Did the Saudi lobby speak?
I think Bin Laden was very clever to choose Saudi citizens as his suicide bombers and not Palestinians or Iraqis.
I think we have to ask why the warrant was weakened and the words "Known Terrorist associations" taken out of the warrant.
I notice they jumped on French Citizen of morrocan descent Moussaoui pretty fast, while laying off the Saudis.
1084. Daniel Sickles - 6/4/2002 2:49:46 PM
cliff
Good points, all.
1085. Daniel Sickles - 6/4/2002 2:53:19 PM
Cal
I don't know why I brought it up. I guess because it was in today's Journal.
But as you can see, I'm taking direction better. I have laid off cliff.
1086. rubberducky - 6/4/2002 2:55:59 PM
but, seriously, how would the FBI having powers to better spy on American citizens really have helped prevent 9/11? i guess i just missed that part.
1087. Daniel Sickles - 6/4/2002 2:59:55 PM
duck
I'm not sure that was a part. I actually was suggesting proactive steps for the future. I apparently mislaid my script. Apparently, that's a no go.
But I have found my script and it now states --
Daniel turns and is immediately bludgeoned with a candlestick in the drawing room. His body spills crimson life. His eyes are fixed at a point no living man can see.(g)
1088. godlessclif - 6/4/2002 3:00:32 PM
I do not agree that the agencies were unprepared to fight terrorism. This partisan theory that Clinton neutered the FBI and CIA and Bush did not have time to revitalize them by restoring their 007 license to kill is baloney. The FBI caught every one of the 1993 bombers under Clinton's policies. How many of the 2000 bomber are in jail? One= Mr. Moussaoui!
What we had with the appointment of Ashcroft was a shift in priorities. The top priority became attending religious meetings and singing patriotic songs. Then he went after the real criminals, The Doctors in Oregon assisitng in suicides. And of course he assinged 200 agents to look into Bill Clinton's sex life.
Ashcroft put counter terrorism on the back burner and ran his own, born again politcal agenda.
Investgate liberals and cloth naked statues was the word.
1089. Daniel Sickles - 6/4/2002 3:03:09 PM
Good points all, cliff. And on topic!
1090. rubberducky - 6/4/2002 3:03:26 PM
Dantheman Sickles
i see, well, as i said, i must have misunderstood.
forgive me
1091. godlessclif - 6/4/2002 3:03:38 PM
Not only that Daniel; Cal Gal like me better than she likes you. Na na , na na na!
1092. Daniel Sickles - 6/4/2002 3:04:38 PM
duck
No need for forgiveness, brother.
1093. rubberducky - 6/4/2002 3:07:49 PM
TheManFromDan:
thank you
just out of curiosity, what sort of 'proactive steps' do you suggest? you, not some article.
1094. CalGal - 6/4/2002 3:08:24 PM
I don't know why I brought it up.
I wasn't asking why you brought it up. I was inquiring why anyone would bring up the FBI's right to surveil civilians as justification for 9/11 failures. In this case, "anyone" is the WSJ.
You didn't answer my question about the modifications to the affadavit and warrant application.
1096. CalGal - 6/4/2002 3:11:34 PM
Apparently, that's a no go.
????
No, not at all. I was speaking only of your taunts to Cliff. You can't resist slamming at what you think of as hackery, but it gets old, particularly when Jex or someone else gets into the act. If Cliff had been going off on political tangents, I would have smacked him too.
I see nothing wrong with being proactive. What I disagree with was the premise of the article you linked in to demonstrate the need to do away with Church era regulations.
1097. Daniel Sickles - 6/4/2002 3:14:55 PM
Duck
The article lays out the possible (in the current skittish climate). I'm a radical. I'm for warrantless searches of any suspect involved in terrorism based on reasonable suspicion (as opposed to judicially-mandated probable cause).
1098. Daniel Sickles - 6/4/2002 3:15:42 PM
Cal
I don't think my answering your questions would further the thread's discourse.
1099. CalGal - 6/4/2002 3:19:23 PM
Daniel,
You don't see how a conversation on why the FBI altered the affadavit to make the terrorist connections seem less likely would further discourse?
1100. rubberducky - 6/4/2002 3:25:17 PM
no offense to Daniel, but i am always amazed when 'conservative' people are willing and seemingly eager to turn over rights with nothing in return but vague assurances of something better.
is it just because there's a Republican on the big white can right now? would they trust Gore the same? what happens when Bush version 2.0 leaves?
i think such people don't ask these questions, because the answers are troubling.
1101. CalGal - 6/4/2002 3:35:42 PM
Daniel has always expressed support for cheerfully turning over power to the police in emergency situations. I seem to recall he supports suspension of the 4th Amendment, or whatever the one is on search and seizure, in inner cities. He generally seems to express support for police as well. He doesn't always support them after the fact--while he supports the NY cops and their right to hold their own inquiries, rather than be subject to public juries, he readily acknowledges the FBI's fuckups in Ruby Ridge. I never see him concerned about potential problems, he only is interested in discussing actual problems after they occur.
Before he bitches--I'm not psychoanalyzing him, here, just pointing out that his views on police and civil liberties is generally consistent.
1102. Daniel Sickles - 6/4/2002 3:43:32 PM
I am a presidential imperialist in the areas of foreign policy and domestic security, be the executive Clinton or Reagan. I have a genetic predisposition to want to punch anyone in the mouth who utters the word "McCarthyism." In matters of life and death, I generally side with the president, the cops, and the military over Congress, city councils, and the State Department. That does not mean I exonerate. Rowley's memo is critical, as was critical investigation of Ruby Ridge and Waco and Louima, in terms of educating for the future.
1103. CalGal - 6/4/2002 4:32:19 PM
Daniel,
I am, seriously, confused as to why you think my query about the FBI modifications to be off-topic.
1104. jexster - 6/5/2002 12:01:44 PM
Of course Bush knew about the impending attacks on America. He did nothing to warn the American people because he needed this war on terrorism. His daddy had Saddam and he needed Osama. . . . His presidency was going nowhere. . . What is sleazy and contemptible is the president of the United States not telling the American people what he knows for political gain
Lt. Col. Steve Butler, USAF, vice chancellor for student affairs Monterey Defense Language Institute
SF Chron also reports that Butler called our WarLord "a joke"
Lese majeste .... should get the Death Gurney!
1105. jexster - 6/5/2002 12:16:34 PM
Free Colonel Butler!!!
"I'd rather have them sacrificing on behalf of our nation than, you know, endless hours of testimony on congressional hill."—National Security Agency, Fort Meade, Md., June 4, 2002
1106. judithathome - 6/5/2002 1:06:14 PM
The Money Man In the 9/11 Attacks?
Should you find this guy, you'll be twenty-five million dollars richer.
1107. CalGal - 6/5/2002 2:35:45 PM
US To Fingerprint Visa Holders
The Justice Department will propose new regulations this week requiring tens of thousands of Muslim and Middle Eastern visa holders to register with the government and be fingerprinted, administration officials said today.
Why only Muslims and Middle Easterners? It's not that I object to racial profiling. I'm worried about loopholes.
1108. jexster - 6/5/2002 3:36:56 PM
The first wave of media and political response to the 9/11 warning scandal has focused on particular lapses—which government agency didn't do what when, which bureaucrat should get the ax. But the more pressing question is what's really wrong with the government agencies that produced this mess.
Reinventing CounterTerrorism
1109. jexster - 6/5/2002 9:12:15 PM
CBS Evening News is quoting Republican Intel Committee members as flat out calling Bush a liar - the US had all the information it needed to stop 9-1-1.
It IS better on CBS.
1110. OhioSTOPAS - 6/6/2002 5:48:53 AM
Maybe it's time now for some people to apologize to Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney? Even Republicans are now asking the same questions that she was so excoriated for asking in April.
Not likely, though. On Fox News Sunday Brit Hume took a shot at McKinney, falsely stating that she "flatly accused President Bush of knowing about the September 11 attacks in advance." This may suggest that the Republican mouthpieces in the media (What? How could anyone say that about "fair and balanced" Brit?) are going to be even harder on McKinney.
For the conservative puntidocracy, wrongly criticizing a Republican administration is bad, but RIGHTLY criticizing it is much, much worse.
1111. OhioSTOPAS - 6/6/2002 6:00:59 AM
Rats. That should have been "punditocracy".
I should stick to "right-wing assholes" - easier to spell.
1112. Daniel Sickles - 6/6/2002 9:52:35 AM
On McKinney
persons close to this administration are poised to make huge profits off America's new war.
I agree. This statement alone merits McKinney a keynote slot at the 2004 convention.
But next State of the union, will she still be salivating over the shoulder of Steny Hoyer to shake the hand of the man whose foreknowledge resulted in so many needlessly murdered?
I hope not. I'd hate to see that slot imperiled.
1113. CalGal - 6/6/2002 9:54:56 AM
Maybe it's time now for some people to apologize to Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney?
You're joking? McKinney is disgusting. She hasn't "rightly" accused Bush of anything. She's living proof that some people don't deserve the vote.
1114. Daniel Sickles - 6/6/2002 10:03:56 AM
No, Cal.
Ohio is correct.
Cynthia, I am so sorry. You were correct. Some folks are making money off of this war, and they knew. THEY KNEW!!!!
Who else knew and why were people not warned?
Two words.
Lockheed Martin.
1115. CalGal - 6/6/2002 10:07:58 AM
I thought they were Halli-Burton.
Anyway, McKinney's making money off of this war. Her donations from terrorist organizations have skyrocketed.
1116. Daniel Sickles - 6/6/2002 10:42:11 AM
I spent the saddest New Year's Eve of my life alone, exhausted and depressed, with a bitter taste in my mouth that lingers in my soul to this day
Jonah Goldberg on the real victims in the terror war. 1117. CalGal - 6/6/2002 10:50:13 AM
Oh, the humanity.
Again, though, I think that increased airline security is largely useless--although I'd have no problem checking out an Arab with a cellphone talking in a different language.
But what bothers me is the emphasis on Arabs and Muslims. Why not put a big sign out that says, "Terrorists--get a Canadian passport and change religions. Allah's blessings upon you!"
1118. CalGal - 6/6/2002 10:51:53 AM
And Daniel, I am still wondering how the FBI's modification of the affadavit to be less persuasive fits into the notion that they need fewer restrictions.
1120. CalGal - 6/6/2002 11:00:08 AM
Where did that post go?
1121. Daniel Sickles - 6/6/2002 11:05:55 AM
But what bothers me is the emphasis on Arabs and Muslims.
A wise woman, in prescbribing pre-September 11th protocol, once said They could also have done whatever it took to identify any illegal aliens from Middle east countries, or at least ensured that the ones with a tourist visa had left the country, or that they knew where they were. And, of course, they could have told airlines that in the event an Arab bought a one-way ticket with cash, the first step would be to call the FBI and stall until they got there.
I'm not sure why emphasizing Arabs and Middle-Easterners would be effective in some way then, and not now.
On the other point, you've taken your understanding of a specific incident and deduced that since the change in policy would have been irrelevant in that instance, it would be irrelevant for all instances, which is so narrow as to border on the bizarre.
Lifting the Church restrictions will either be a benefit, a deteriment, or of no moment, but focusing on one submission to assess is so counterintuitive that I have difficulty discussing it with you. It is as if I speak English and you respond with clicks and clucks of your tongue (or vice versa). (g)
Which is why I have avoided the discussion. I'll leave you the last word.
1122. OhioSTOPAS - 6/6/2002 11:43:34 AM
My, my. Saying "Cynthia McKinney" pushes some buttons, I see.
Given what we are starting to learn now, is her demand that the Bush administration divulge what it knew prior to September 11 (as many others have since) and her observation of the political and financial benefits enjoyed by some as a result of the atrocity (factually undebatable), justification for questioning her loyalty and sanity?
Brit Hume DID misrepresent her statements, didn't he?
Daniel (Message # 1112): Why shouldn't McKinney have shaken the President's hand at the State of the Union address?
Cal (Message # 1115): Do you have any data regarding McKinney's campaign contributions to support that statement?
1123. CalGal - 6/6/2002 11:46:49 AM
I'm not sure why emphasizing Arabs and Middle-Easterners would be effective in some way then, and not now.
Because it wouldn't have been a stated policy. The terrorists in question wouldn't have known the policy existed. The FBI would have had a reasonable suspicion, and questioned people or taken action accordingly. The terrorists wouldn't have been able to compensate with a different policy.
Announcing the new policy about fingerprinting and such is the same thing as saying "no guns on board planes". You don't bring guns on board, you figure out how to do the deed with box knives. Announce no box knives, you learn how to disembowell people with credit cards. The value of 9/11 wasn't on airline policy, it was on passengers understanding that they were underestimating the worst that could happen.
So suppose they learned, right now, that Arab terrorists were investigating crop dusters again. It would be wholly appropriate to start investigating plane rentals for Arabic names, paying cash, etc. It would be foolish after a crop duster dumped small pox germs over Omaha to declare that Arabs were going to be investigated more closely if they wanted to rent planes.
It is stupid to create policies with loopholes. It is not stupid to investigate people using existing policies, and to investigate using specific criteria.
Lifting the Church restrictions will either be a benefit, a deteriment, or of no moment, but focusing on one submission to assess is so counterintuitive that I have difficulty discussing it with you
I'm not focusing on one submission. The author of the article you linked in focused on it, and used it as a rationale for rolling back Church restrictions. I have said there are arguments for and against it. I am asking you why you don't agree that the author's use of this case isn't flawed for that reason.
1124. CalGal - 6/6/2002 11:47:29 AM
Ohio,
I linked it in earlier, on McKinney.
1125. Daniel Sickles - 6/6/2002 11:48:00 AM
Ohio
I agree. I apologized. And I see no reason why she shouldn't trample any and everybody to get at the butcher and war profiteer of Crawford.
1126. OhioSTOPAS - 6/6/2002 11:48:34 AM
Daniel: The article to which you linked in Message # 1116 is a piece of crap, even by National Review's and Jonah Goldberg's low standards. Do you really think this article has merit?
1127. Daniel Sickles - 6/6/2002 11:50:57 AM
It has no merit. It is just awful. Terrible. Unconscionable. That's why I linked it.
What has merit are precise observations like The article to which you linked in Message # 1116 is a piece of crap.
Now that is meritorious.
1128. OhioSTOPAS - 6/6/2002 11:54:12 AM
Daniel: If you would emerge from behind your flippant persona for a minute, you might admit that you Message # 1125 is unresponsive and implicitly mischaracterizes McKinney's remarks in two ways: She did not say that Bush had prior knowledge that the September 11 attack would occur ("butcher")and she did not say that Bush profited personally from the war ("war profiteer").
1129. OhioSTOPAS - 6/6/2002 12:00:09 PM
As for Goldberg's article, here's one example. He describes (and belittles) the unfair treatment of the loyal American kicked off an airplane for no other reason than his ethnic background. But, says Son-of-Lucianne, what about the delays that everyone has to endure because of post-9/11 increased security? Huh?
What does that have to do with the treatment of this Arab-American passenger? (Unless the implied point is "Your people have caused hardship for everyone", in which case it's just offensive.)
1130. Daniel Sickles - 6/6/2002 12:00:33 PM
Ohio
No. She did not say those things. I offered her quotes, and those quotes inform my mocking characterizations.
Except in Ohioland, where someone yells "Kike!" in Elie Wiesel's face, I say "Damn, that person doesn't like Jews" and you say "Well, that person didn't explicitly say she didn't like Jews, it may be that she just doesn't like Wiesel, so you are mischaracterizing her words." You then call for all to apologize to the person who yelled "Kike!"
One can only hope that your slavish adherance to the technical results in a DNC press release demanding that Brit Hume and Zell Miller apologize to the vindicated Cynthia McKinney.
1131. Daniel Sickles - 6/6/2002 12:06:45 PM
Ohio
Goldberg answers your question - he suggests (mind you, he's not explicit, so it may be hard for you to glean) that every inconvenience is disproportionate.
1132. Daniel Sickles - 6/6/2002 12:22:18 PM
Ohio
He describes (and belittles) the unfair treatment of the loyal American kicked off an airplane for no other reason than his ethnic background.
Perhaps you're not the person to complain of misrepresentation by Hume.
You neglect to mention that Goldberg cites potentially suspicious activity on a New Year's Eve on a plane approximately three months after planes were smashing into also sorts of things (planes filled with folks who up to the minute they went operative the ACLU and you would have described as "loyal") and a week after another "loyal" fellow was trying to light his bomb shoes on fire.
1133. jexster - 6/6/2002 12:45:35 PM
Monterey County Herald Story on Brave Col. Butler
1134. OhioSTOPAS - 6/6/2002 12:54:16 PM
Fair enough. My reading was sloppy. The plaintiff Culeg is not even of Arabic decscent - rather, Filipino. Furthermore, he's apparently not a citizen, since he's referred to as a legal resident.
But as for "suspicious activity": He had a cellphone and loaned it to another passenger.
1135. Daniel Sickles - 6/6/2002 12:58:41 PM
Ohio
Which, on a New Years' Eve three months after Rodney King got his ass beat, would mean dick, and I'd be every bit as litigious about the violation (well, not every bit).
I'm sure Richard Reid looked like he was tying his shoes.
1136. OhioSTOPAS - 6/6/2002 1:00:45 PM
As for Message # 1130, you gotta be kidding. Calling the September 11 deaths "needless" equals calling President Bush a "butcher"? Then there's a long line of people calling Bush a "butcher" today.
Your second paragraph is ridiculous.
And your third paragraph is an incomprehensible incomplete sentence (some words missing?).
1137. OhioSTOPAS - 6/6/2002 1:02:16 PM
Richard Reid was trying to set FIRE to his shoe. Unlike cellphones, that's not something you see every day.
1138. Daniel Sickles - 6/6/2002 1:10:46 PM
Ohio
Your first sentence is ludicrous.
Your second sentence is preposterous.
Your third sentence is less than pulchritudinous (re-read my third sentence - unlike your education, the sentence is complete -hint - read technical as if I wrote "Your slavish adherance to the mystical" and read "results" as a verb rather than a noun).
(this is fun)
1139. OhioSTOPAS - 6/6/2002 1:13:32 PM
Wow! Daniel, you're right again!
(that your third paragraph was a complete sentence, not about anything else.)
1140. Daniel Sickles - 6/6/2002 1:14:45 PM
Ohio
I am sure you have not let your community college down.
1141. CalGal - 6/6/2002 1:14:46 PM
Oh, lord. This is just faux politics. Isn't there a thread for this? Daniel, I answered your question and asked one in return. I realize it's not as fun as Dem-baiting, but when you have time?
1142. Daniel Sickles - 6/6/2002 1:17:32 PM
Cal
I said my piece on the issue. I've no interest in exploring it further with you.
As for your hosting advice, I'm off to American Politics where I shall continue to beat Ohio about the head and neck. both about his meager education and his muddled thinking.
1143. OhioSTOPAS - 6/6/2002 1:21:19 PM
"I shall continue to beat Ohio about the head and neck."
Bringing a ladder, eh?
1144. judithathome - 6/6/2002 1:37:28 PM
Anyone watching the hearings?
1145. CalGal - 6/6/2002 1:44:33 PM
Daniel,
You said, "I'm not sure why emphasizing Arabs and Middle-Easterners would be effective in some way then, and not now. "
I answered you and you haven't acknowledged.
On the other, I corrected your assertion that I was overly fixated on one event. Rather, it was your author who used that event. So you could at least acknowledge your error?
1146. judithathome - 6/6/2002 6:51:40 PM
Interesting interview on ABC news just now with a Depaertment of Agriculture worker named Johnell Bryant...she interviewed Mohammed Atta who was asking for a government loan to buy and customize small planes for a "crop dusting" venture. You can read the transcript of what she said on their website.
1147. judithathome - 6/6/2002 6:54:35 PM
Here it is:
Face to Face With a Terrorist
1148. CalGal - 6/6/2002 7:39:54 PM
It's not like it would have done any good, but I would certainly have reported anyone who made comments about the destruction of national monuments.
1149. ronski - 6/6/2002 11:56:07 PM
Christ, you would think.
But while I have favored lighter colored eyes in (how shall I put this?) lovers --- you know, Cold as the March wind, his eyes (Yeats) --- I think describing black eyes as "scary," read evil, is awful, if not thoroughly racist.
Perhaps a minor point, given the context. Or perhaps not. Perhaps being a racist and being too stupid to alert the government over a real threat go hand in glove.
1150. judithathome - 6/7/2002 12:04:28 AM
The fact she saw nothing unusual in him offering her money for the picture behind her desk was weird considering it was an aerial view of DC and he pointed out the Pentagon...Brian Ross said she had passed a lie detector test when she finally came forward and Jennings said, "She passed a lie detector test?" as though he were skeptical.
When I saw the teaser for this story, I was skeptical, too...I immediately thought, "Glory hog." I thought she was one of those people who want to be on TV and will parlay a brush with someone into an interview. Judgemental of me, I know....
1151. ronski - 6/7/2002 12:13:01 AM
If you'd worked at ABC you might be less surprised at Jennings' question to Ross. Brian is certainly a good investigative reporter, but not exactly (how shall I put this?) immune from criticism, in-house, and out. At least, that is my read, but I have not toiled there for many years.
1152. ronski - 6/7/2002 12:19:09 AM
And I suspect there will be many more people coming out from the woodwork.
I am hopeful that, given our heightened awareness, we will actually be able to connect the dots the next time, and stop the next hideous assault.
But I do not want Mueller telling us that is all is lost. I still think he should be canned for those infuriating remarks.
1153. CalGal - 6/7/2002 1:19:52 AM
I can't imagine anyone would want to come forward to brag that they'd been stupid enough to have an encounter like that and never mention it. But there you go.
1154. joezan - 6/7/2002 9:25:18 AM
One American hostage killed, one rescued in raid on Abu Sayyaf camp
MANILA, Philippines, June 7 — An American
missionary was killed and his wife wounded
during an attempt by the Philippines government
to rescue the couple, who had been held hostage
for more than a year by Muslim extremists in the
Philippines, a military official said.
1155. godlessclif - 6/7/2002 11:54:12 AM
Ronnie Rayguns created the last cabinet level department. That was the veterans affairs department. Poopy Bush and Bill Clinton did not create any new departments. Clinton trimmed the federal bureaucracy to is smallest number of employees since the Kennedy Administration.
But Junior has returned us to bureaucratic bloat. First he created the faith based office and hired tons of religious nuts, now he is creating a whole new department to duplicate the work of FBI and CIA.
Everything from the CDC to the Coastguard is getting sucked into the new departments bureaucracy.
1156. godlessclif - 6/7/2002 3:10:19 PM
How far do you want to go to undo the work of the Church Tower committee? I assume Senator Frank Church [D-Idaho] is who you mean when you refer to "church" era.
I plead guity to coddling Molly and will continue to Mollycoddle, be a natering nabob of negativity and pussyfoot because I believe that is the American way.
1157. godlessclif - 6/7/2002 3:20:19 PM
I recall from the Church-Tower hearings that the CIA had set up something called Operation Mockingbird to make the press sing the same song as the administration.
They had recruited dozens of Newspaper columnist, TV talking heads and radio personalities and executives to get the media to sing the "company" song foreign and domestic.
Like that Office of Strategery Information Bush started at the pentagon, I am sure that kind of thing would be very unpopular. In fact I am wiht Senator Moynahan of new york who wanted to eliminate the CIA altogether and let military intelegance handle it. The CIA is just duplication of what could be done by Army Intelegence, Office of Naval Intelegence etc. If they had the resources.
Being military they would be less likely to go rogue like the CIA is preparing to do.
1158. ronski - 6/9/2002 10:47:42 AM
AP is reporting that traces of nerve gas have been found at a U.S. base in Uzbekistan.
I suppose better there than the Union Square subway station, but probably not a good sign.
And then there is the report of Middle Eastern men trying to buy kayaks (ocean kayaks, I think) in Los Angeles that could carry up to 850 lbs. This ties in with the warning about scuba diving terrorists. I imagine terrorists are thinking about blowing up bridges by exploding them at water level or beneath it, as well as trying to take down a bridge by exploding a truck on it.
1159. godlessclif - 6/9/2002 11:28:59 AM
There are also traces of poison gas in Manhattan because Mayor Bloomberg has told owners of older buildings in New York to resume burning trash and plastic in their incinerators. Using the incinerators was made illegal by Mayor Koch to cooperate with the EPA initiative to pass the Clean Air Act. I guess the Clean Air Act is no longer being enforced.
1160. ronski - 6/9/2002 11:47:04 AM
I'm still more worried about the nerve gas.
1161. godlessclif - 6/9/2002 12:00:09 PM
They will hit a soft target. Somewhere where we are not prepared. My guess is some sort of economic warfare. Economics is the Bush Regime's weak suit.
Like Clinton said, "It is the economy stupid."
We should be watching the currency and stock markets for electronic sabotage of some sort.
The Twin Towers contained the Nasdaq Electronic trading floor, fortunately they had a backup system in Fort Worth Texas.
1162. ronski - 6/9/2002 12:04:28 PM
They are working on several fronts, hard and soft, is my guess. I also think they are fairly decentralized. They almost have to be.
1163. CalGal - 6/9/2002 1:19:16 PM
There seems little question that they are decentralized.
I hope that the FBI is looking at bridges throughout the country to see which are approachable using that method. None of the Bay Area bridges qualify.
1164. CalGal - 6/9/2002 8:29:47 PM
CNN host's 'war on Islamists' sparks thorny religious debate
"We are fighting a war against extreme, radical Muslims, who are trying to destroy us, our society, our economy, our way of life. They're called Islamists not Muslims or Islamics, Islamists. They are the enemy," Mr. Dobbs said on his show Wednesday night.
He returned to the topic Thursday night, when he said he was struggling to "remove what has become to me more of an obfuscatory phrase — that is, the war on terror — which is really about a condition and not about the source of that terror, which are these Islamists."
Mr. Dobbs, you've sold me. I'm changing the title of the thread.
1165. Absensia - 6/9/2002 9:09:01 PM
Sorry Cal, but I think it's a real slap in the face to Irv, KK and any others who may be muslim. I think that consideration requires a certain sensitivity.
More than this, I have nothing to say.
1166. godlessclif - 6/9/2002 9:14:54 PM
Cal Gal :"We are fighting a war against extreme, radical Muslims, who are trying to destroy us"
I can't tell you how disappointed I am. Yes , it is a war between Christianity and Islam. Like Greg Widen's charector said in his novel "Highlander".
Duncan McCleod, " In the end there can be only one."
One religion or the other must be destroyed.
As an athiest I am a non combatant in this struggle. Please don't destroy the world I have to live in doing this religious genocide.
1167. CalGal - 6/9/2002 9:19:09 PM
Nonsense. It's not a war between religions. Islam is not the same as Islamism. If you don't know the difference, look it up.
1168. CalGal - 6/9/2002 9:20:46 PM
Abs, we've had this discussion once already in the religion thread. I'm pretty sure you were one of the people who got all in a huff because you didn't know that Islamism and Islamist is not equivalent to Islam and Muslim.
I don't much care whether you approve or not, but don't fake ignorance of the difference.
1169. Absensia - 6/9/2002 9:24:40 PM
No Cal, I didn't get in a huff but you did...and your word games are stupid...how do you recognize an Islamist? He or she can look like other Muslims, and don't talk about ignorance...I suggest you look back at what KK said...but then what does he know, he's only a highly educated muslim.
Don't try to to be disingenuous with me...I don't buy it.
1170. Absensia - 6/9/2002 9:26:12 PM
As I said, if you want to continue this, it won't be here...I'll talk in the inferno, but not here. I raised my objections here, but I'm not staying..never have posted here. Sorry you didn't like what I said and had to start getting nasty....again....as usual.
1171. CalGal - 6/9/2002 9:28:40 PM
Differences between Islamism and Islam
Distinguishing between Islamism and Islam, by Daniel Pipes
Islamism is, in other words, yet another twentieth-century radical utopian scheme. Like Marxism-Leninism or fascism, it offers a way to control the state, run society, and remake the human being. It is an Islamic-flavored version of totalitarianism. The details, of course, are very different from the preceding versions, but the ultimate purpose is very similar.
Islamism is also a total transformation of traditional Islam; it serves as a vehicle of modernization. The ideology deals with the problems of urban living, of working women and others at the cutting edge, and not the traditional concerns of farmers. As Olivier Roy, the French scholar, puts it, "Rather than a reaction against the modernization of Muslim societies, Islamism is a product of it." Islamism is not a medieval program but one that responds to the stress and strains of the twentieth century.
In this, Islamism is a huge change from traditional Islam. One illustration: Whereas traditional Islam's sacred law is a personal law, a law a Muslim must follow wherever he is, Islamism tries to apply a Western-style geographic law that depends on where one lives. Take the case of Sudan, where traditionally a Christian was perfectly entitled to drink alcohol, for he is a Christian, and Islamic law applies only to Muslims. But the current regime has banned alcohol for every Sudanese. It assumes Islamic law is territorial because that is the way a Western society is run.
1172. wonkers2 - 6/9/2002 9:33:01 PM
Just as "isms" in this country have tried to ban abortion, morning after pills, divorce, contraceptives, homosexuality, etc, ad nauseam, for everyone.
1173. arkymalarky - 6/9/2002 10:17:28 PM
Almost anything turned into an "ism/ist" is hardly acceptable to anyone but fanatics and is a potential threat to ordered societies because of the lengths they're willing to go to for their extremes. That's why it's called terrorism.
To attach "ist" to a major religion can be a propagandistic way to connect the belief with extremism, can be denoting a branch or extreme trend of a particular religion, or it can be both--Christian Fundamentalist and Islamist have both been used both ways. But isms of any type are hardly a new problem. This ism today, whatever other ism radical types adhere to --fascism maybe? reactionism? mormonism?-- tomorrow.
The potential for terrorism with true extremists of any sort is always there and they all bear watching.
I'm with Lennon and Ferris Bueler on isms in general.
1174. wonkers2 - 6/9/2002 10:20:13 PM
Well, the Catholic Church and fundamentalist Protestant groups tolerate and even encourage anti-abortion terrorism.
1175. jexster - 6/9/2002 10:45:25 PM
No story link I could find on site but 60 Min. ran a story 2 nite on how Kuwait, saved by Prince George, is a hot bed of King Moron haters...
Way to go!
But which way to Baghdad bozos?
1176. judithathome - 6/9/2002 10:54:55 PM
I saw that one...I liked when Mike Wallace asked that American educated Kuwaiti why, if he thought America was such a bad influence on the world, he chose to send his son to America to be educated at an American college. I think if they have such a low opinion of us, they shouldn't send there kids over here to get the "wrong ideas."
And he also said we did the wrong thing in Afghanistan...I guess he's pretty happy we did the right thing in regard to Kuwait, though, or he'd be talking from a camp overseen by Iraqui soldiers.
1177. joezan - 6/9/2002 11:20:08 PM
How did I know that when I entered this newly-named thread I would immediately see objections to its name?
As for Irv and KK taking umbrage, haven't they both clearly expressed this exact distinction - between Muslim and radical Islamist, in defending their religion?
And why have I never seen those who've complained here complain when someone refers to Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Ralph Reed, et al (none of whom, as far as anyone can tell, has never blown anyone up), or those Christian groups who have committed acts of terrorism, as "Christian extremists"?
I may be projecting a bit here, but I never object to folks referring to those in fringe Christian groups that engage in domestic terrorism as Christian extremists...terrorists...nutballs, or what have you.
I think both Irv and KK have at least as thick a skin as I have.
1178. CalGal - 6/9/2002 11:33:18 PM
Abs, from the Inferno thread:
I think you are wrong about Irv and KK going along with Cal's definitions...we shall see.
I don't care if they go along or not. But given the numerous cites I've provided, I suggest you don't refer to them as "Cal's definitions". Islamism is separate and distinct from Islam, and acknowledged as such. Deal with it.
1179. CalGal - 6/9/2002 11:56:41 PM
Is Islamism a Threat?
Interesting debate held back in 1999. Participants: Daniel Pipes, Martin Kramer, Graham Fuller, and John Esposito
1180. ivan osokin - 6/10/2002 1:56:30 AM
Initially i cringed when i saw this new title but i wanted to see the spin. so far, nothing unexpected, i'd say.
Islamism is not a medieval program but one that responds to the stress and strains of the twentieth century.....It assumes Islamic law is territorial because that is the way a Western society is run.
So Islamism is causally linked to the influence of the West? If that's the case, perhaps we should call it "Americanist Islam"...an Islam that believes it has the right to inflict itself everywhere and impose itself on any nation. after all, isn't that how western society became what it is and isn't that what "Islamism" is using as a model? (It assumes Islamic law is territorial because that is the way a Western society is run.)
from Pipes:
Islamism presents the only ideologically vibrant challenge today to the reigning liberal outlook. Although seemingly only a minor irritant at this point, it has the capacity to cause enormous mischief. Those of us who appreciate individualism, democracy, and the free market must be ready to confront this totalitarian impulse, and to do so sooner rather than later.
this, above all, summarizes what i think will be the prevailing attitude in this thread. and it is a point for which i cannot agree, seeing that this "free market", etc., is the catalyst to which "Islamists" are reacting.
1181. ivan osokin - 6/10/2002 1:58:54 AM
Pipes also states, in another article:
Fundamentalist Islam is not Islam. It is necessary to distinguish between Islam and fundamentalist Islam. Islam is an ancient faith and capacious civilization; fundamentalist Islam a narrow, aggressive twentieth-century ideological movement. Whatever one chooses to call the phenomenon-extremist Islam, fundamentalist Islam, militant Islam, political Islam, radical Islam, Islamism, Islamic revival-it is the problem, not Islam as such.
he says fundamentalist islam is not islam, though he hesitates to define the difference between a person whose faith is islam and an islamist. "Islam is an ancient faith...blah blah" is doublespeak, ignoring the human component. Apparently, it's easier to figure out what an Islamist is than what a muslim is. i suspect this is because he would find precious few muslims he couldn't determine to be "Islamists" as well.
you can defend it and define it all you want, but the veiled language of "Islamist" (with its semantically sound, yet idealogically bigoted view) is no different than saying, "not all black men are criminals, but among the black culture there seems to be a prevalence of crime." the nominal separation of Islam and Islamism is a meaningless difference when applied outside the narrow view of the west.
1182. concerned - 6/10/2002 4:12:03 AM
the nominal separation of Islam and Islamism is a meaningless difference when applied outside the narrow view of the west.
Not at all. Turkey is a secular Islamic regime which appears to have given up the idea that there is any religious justification for jihad on dar-al-Kufr. Would that all Islamic societies disallowed that genocidal tendency of Islam. But the Islamists are marching in the opposite direction.
1183. RustlerPike - 6/10/2002 6:07:11 AM
I'm with Lennon and Ferris Bueler on isms in general.
Including Femin-?
Islam is an ancient faith and capacious civilization; fundamentalist Islam a narrow, aggressive twentieth-century ideological movement.
What were the Mahdists doing at Omdurman then?
Though I admit, 1898 can be considered 20th century.
1184. RustlerPike - 6/10/2002 6:17:59 AM
The Dervishes were weak in cavalry, and had scarcely 2,000 horsemen on the field. About 400 of these, mostly the personal retainers of the various Emirs, were formed into an irregular regiment and attached to the flag of Ali-Wad-Helu. Now when these horsemen perceived that there was no more hope of victory, they arranged themselves in a solid mass and charged the left of MacDonald's brigade. The distance was about 500 yards, and, wild as was the firing of the Sudanese, it was evident that they could not possibly succeed. Nevertheless, many carrying no weapon in their hands, and all urging their horses to their utmost speed, they rode unflinchingly to certain death. All were killed and fell as they entered the zone of fire---three, twenty, fifty, two hundred, sixty, thirty, five and one out beyond them all---a brown smear across the sandy plain. A few riderless horses alone broke through the ranks of the infantry.
Churchill on Omdurman.
1185. PelleNilsson - 6/10/2002 6:21:59 AM
´From the Pipes quote:
Islamism is also a total transformation of traditional Islam; it serves as a vehicle of modernization. The ideology deals with the problems of urban living, of working women and others at the cutting edge, and not the traditional concerns of farmers. As Olivier Roy, the French scholar, puts it, "Rather than a reaction against the modernization of Muslim societies, Islamism is a product of it." Islamism is not a medieval program but one that responds to the stress and strains of the twentieth century.
If that is so the Wahabbis who produced bin Laden and the Taliban are not Islamists and we immediately have a problem of analysis.
1186. ivan osokin - 6/10/2002 7:45:59 AM
the nominal separation of Islam and Islamism is a meaningless difference when applied outside the narrow view of the west
when i said this, i was referring to the labeling. it was like hearing my dad, stuck in his old-timey ignorance, saying this about african-americans (and i'm paraphrasing)...
"Colored people are the niggers you don't mind working with. Niggers are the ones that do all the bad shit, but the colored people don't."
this was his belief...and really, is he not saying the same thing? that all african-americans are judged based on a negative standard ("nigger"-ness), and the line that separates them is easy to cross...i mean, doing something that would qualify them as "nigger" wouldn't take much effort...not holding a door open for you, swearing out loud, supporting a radical black candidate, etc..
in the same way, this "islamism/islam" crap is kind of like saying, "Islamists are muslims we don't want to live with. Islamists do all the bad shit, while Muslims don't." you still assume a negative attribute to be the unit of measure. it would be like me assuming all capitalists are out to be greedy pillagers and i judge them based on that.
the fine line between muslim and islamist is really based on how much they resist western encroachment. those that put up the largest stink are the Islamists. but what of the muslim who is a good american citizen but doesn't believe the US should have created the gulf-spectacle, who believes that bush's war in afghanistan is equally atrocious to anything muslims ever did to westerners, etc.? are they, then, "Islamists?"
the creation of "Islamism" is a convenient way for the Right-eous to find reasons to nominally justify what they already believe...to create a clever way of rationalizing the bigotry for which they already stand.
1187. joezan - 6/10/2002 7:48:46 AM
That's a specious and wrong-headed point, Pelle.
Pipes is not saying - or suggesting - that Western culture/Democracy/Urbanization are the only phenomena against which radical Islamism has arisen, or would arise.
Wahabbism arose a couple of centuries ago as a reaction to internal factors - Sufism, namely - which threatened the status quo.
How does his assertion that Islamism is the vehicle for the current wave of rebellion against external factors which threaten the status quo create this problem of analysis you're seeing? If Islamism is the "vehicle of modernization", it makes perfect sense that Wahabbism is the vehicle of Islamism.
Did American segregationists/racists need to come up with a new vehicle of oppression when the gov't said that they could no longer segregate and oppress?
Hell no! They had a perfectly good vehicle, left over from the days when it was alright to segregate and oppress - the Klan.
Why reinvent the wheel?
1188. ivan osokin - 6/10/2002 7:59:56 AM
Did American segregationists/racists need to come up with a new vehicle of oppression when the gov't said that they could no longer segregate and oppress?
it wasn't just the Klan...that's the obvious.
what the government said and what people believed was quite different...many people did, and do, try their damndest to find loopholes around racial discrimination laws in their labor practices, commercial enterprises, social organizations, etc.. the attitudes of society have changed regarding the issue of racism primarily because overt racism is too dangerous. it was fine when people were in chains, but without them, they could hit back. much better to just keep people poor and ignorant...this way you can sell them crap and move them around at will.
racists ignore legality. hell, outlawing marijuana hasn't curbed its use...why would a law about hiring people fairly, for example, do anything. go to any large corporation and see how many black people are on the board of directors...or are even executives?
being white, i still hear people complaining about "niggers"...only now, they keep it quieter...looking around to see whose in hearing range. there's a frightening undercurrent of racism that is not to be addressed, better to sugarcoat things with a law here and there than to actually do something to change the racism. why do we look at racism as political or legislative? how many black americans think racism ended with the civil rights era?
1189. wonkers2 - 6/10/2002 8:09:39 AM
Decoding the Bureau
1190. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 6/10/2002 8:19:01 AM
***WARNING***This video shows the beheading of Daniel Pearl ***WARNING***
The Daniel Pearl video . . .
1191. arkymalarky - 6/10/2002 8:48:48 AM
Including Femin-?
Yes ma'am.
WoW,
Thank you for linking that, and thank you for warning what it is. I won't look at it, but knowing it's there is impacting enough, at least for me.
1192. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 6/10/2002 9:19:28 AM
Sure ark--we are so insolated from so much of the pain in this world--I felt it important to share this as a document of the times.
My take is that he was a genuine martyr because he was innocent--as opposed to the murderous zealots of Islam who feign martyrdom.
But make no mistake, much of our foreign policy has contributed to the cesspools of hatred around the globe.
Pearl's awareness of that fact seems evident to me in some of the taped monologue. I also think the video will help to provide resolve in the fight against terror because it exposes just how vile these psychopaths are.
It is also quite evident that he was a sweet and loving man--the seeds of his compassion and love should not fall on barren ground--his family should cherish his memory, strength of character and his sacrifice--a beautiful man in every sense of the word.
He talks about being a Jewish-American , how he disagrees with U.S. Foreign Policy and in the last part the murders pick up his severed head and superimpose a bunch of claptrap propaganda with a hackneyed sound track.
1193. arkymalarky - 6/10/2002 9:35:45 AM
Beautifully said, Wiz.
Didn't I read that his wife had their baby the other day?
The only hope extremists have in getting their way is that their propaganda plays on the feelings of the mainstream enough to give them needed support and at the same time their terror disables their opposition. The Brown Shirts are an excellent example of how to do that when the national environment is conducive to it. It rarely succeeds, but it has more than once with world-altering consequences in the twentieth century. Exposing what extremists really are is the best antidote, and the Pearl incident and video do just that.
1194. marjoribanks - 6/10/2002 10:09:38 AM
Let's not saint Daniel Pearl.
In fact, he was just a regular NY-type individual doing his job who got caught up in events beyond his control. This does not qualify him for sainthood just as it does not qualify the Bangladeshi busboy contingent at Windows on the World for sainthood - those who died on 9/11.
It is a stark reminder, yes. His case tells you once again that parts of the world are once again unsafe for Americans, yes. But hagiography in this case is no less unpalatable than in the Vatican's manipulations.
1195. marjoribanks - 6/10/2002 10:11:05 AM
Daniel Pipes is a scumbag. Do not listen to anything he says, do not accept any of his analysis. He is agenda-ridden well past the point of being a pathetic shell.
1196. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 6/10/2002 10:17:07 AM
I wasn't advocating "sainthood" or idealization of any kind. You and I are in total accord with regard to religion. Nevertheless, this man was innocent and fits the definition of one who makes a great sacrifice or suffers much in order to further a belief, cause, or a principle--in this case getting out the truth and believing in justice.
And I find your admonishment telling.
1197. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 6/10/2002 10:22:28 AM
"Daniel Pipes?"
1198. marjoribanks - 6/10/2002 10:22:32 AM
Wiz,
Many, many, innocent people have died horribly in Pakistan and beyond in this particular "war".
1199. marjoribanks - 6/10/2002 10:25:17 AM
Pipes is a different guy, Wiz.
1200. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 6/10/2002 10:26:29 AM
I recognize and totally agree with that, but this act of barbarity can't be justified in any way.
Did you view the video?
1201. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 6/10/2002 10:27:10 AM
Oh! thanks (xpost)
1202. arkymalarky - 6/10/2002 10:28:54 AM
The point isn't Pearl himself or his suffering any more than with any other individuals caught on film in grave circumstances that they handle with dignity (the Chinese man facing down the tank at Tienanmen Square, for instance, or the little girl ablaze with napalm in Vietnam), but the impact of the video in revealing the nature of the agressors.
1203. marjoribanks - 6/10/2002 10:34:12 AM
Yes, I viewed the video, mainly to see how well such technology works over the Internet. I have previously seen the Pearl video on a tape.
1204. TabouliJones - 6/10/2002 10:34:29 AM
I understand that 'islamism' or 'islamist' strikes many as code used by bigoted fools. I think there is agreement (if not a consensus), however, among Motiers debating the label that there is a need to recognize the distinction between Islam as religion and the sort of extremism that promotes terrorism in the name of Islam. I am just curious as to what alternative term would be (or is) considered productive in terms of underscoring the distinction without supplying bigots with a code word that only serves to perpetuate their bigotry. I gather 'extremist Islam' or 'fundamentalist Islam' would make sense to those able to make the distinction. The problem with these options, however, is that the foolish are likely to just conflate the modifiers extremist and fundamentalist with Islam in general. So I ask (perhaps in ignorance): is there a phrasing that adequately marks the distinction?
1205. marjoribanks - 6/10/2002 10:39:53 AM
Gobal Jihadis.
1206. marjoribanks - 6/10/2002 10:40:01 AM
Global Jihadis.
1207. marjoribanks - 6/10/2002 10:43:26 AM
Global Jihadis are a select breed, they represent the edge of purported Islamists like the wacko evangelical Christians represent Christians or the wacko Hindutvadis misrepresent Hinduism.
1208. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 6/10/2002 10:43:44 AM
marj- Please address the justification issue of the Pearl beheading. I'm curious because you can be eloquent in your passion of things and I would appreciate your take.
1209. marjoribanks - 6/10/2002 10:54:21 AM
Wiz,
Of course there is no justification. I'm appalled by the crime as you are. I'm, however, similarty appalled by the hundred other crimes, in the same vein, that have been committed by all parties involved.
I like Pearl. He was one of my contingent of like-minded people. But when you make him a martyr you ignore the bigger issues that involve the US.
1210. TabouliJones - 6/10/2002 10:55:46 AM
marjori,
Thanks. Global Jihadis makes good sense in terms of marking the distinction.
1211. CalGal - 6/10/2002 10:57:31 AM
If that is so the Wahabbis who produced bin Laden and the Taliban are not Islamists and we immediately have a problem of analysis.
No, we don't. Pipes and others state very clearly that Wahabbis are not Islamists.
1212. marjoribanks - 6/10/2002 11:00:17 AM
CalGal,
I suggest that you put a question mark at the end of your thread title.
1213. CalGal - 6/10/2002 11:02:27 AM
Ashcroft announces capture of 'dirty bomb' suspect
Attorney General John Ashcroft announced Monday the capture of a "known terrorist" with connections to al Qaeda who allegedly planned to build and explode a radioactive "dirty bomb" in the United States.
The man, whom Ashcroft said was an al Qaeda operative, was captured May 8 as he flew into Chicago's O'Hare International Airport from Pakistan. Ashcroft said the suspect was being transferred from Justice Department custody to the Defense Department after officials determined he was an "enemy combatant" who posed a serious and continuing threat to U.S. citizens.
1214. godlessclif - 6/10/2002 11:10:21 AM
I thought the CIA created the wahabbis.
1215. Goody Hoo - 6/10/2002 11:14:24 AM
>the distinction between Islam as religion and the sort of extremism that promotes terrorism in the name of Islam.
Where do we find the distinction articulated among the followers of Mohammed? Got any links to sermons or books or articles or mosques or communities or ANYTHING at all that supports the claim that somewhere there are Mooseleems that are not extremist or fundamentalist?
Why don't the moderate imams appear on t.v. and explain their position and denounce the extremists and express outrage over the attack on our country? Then, anyone tempted to "conflate" the two groups, would be stopped!
1216. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 6/10/2002 11:14:26 AM
Marj, I have no desire to "make" him a martyr, but I do believe he will become one in time, nonetheless.
I think the "bigger issue" is one of global injustice, poverty and ignorance that metastasizes because we (our species) fail to recognize a kind of anastomotic relationship with all the people on the planet.
1217. sakonige - 6/10/2002 11:16:00 AM
I like the thread title the way it is. The meaning is perfectly clear. No amount of semantic contortion can disguise it. The West is at war with Islam.
1218. Wombat - 6/10/2002 11:22:33 AM
and vice-versa.
1219. sakonige - 6/10/2002 11:23:42 AM
Understanding that the West intends to destroy Islam makes it easier to undertand why Islamists want to destroy the West.
1220. CalGal - 6/10/2002 11:48:18 AM
I'm astonished more people aren't fussed over the arrest. But the man, Jose Padilla (spelling), is a great example of why Islamism is an ideology, not a religion.
He's a U.S. citizen who adopted Islamism. I am interested in seeing how he achieved citizenship, or if he was born here. As many of you know, I've been saying we have to fix our illegal alien problem because the real issue is when our own citizens start acting against us. If the news reports are right, it looks like that time is already here.
1221. ivan osokin - 6/10/2002 11:54:34 AM
I like the thread title the way it is. The meaning is perfectly clear. No amount of semantic contortion can disguise it. The West is at war with Islam.
Understanding that the West intends to destroy Islam makes it easier to undertand why Islamists want to destroy the West.
thank you Sakonige...nice to see that some people can just be honest about what's going on rather than couch their bigotry with some ignorant, pseduo-academic analysis by some "authorities" (read: skilled righ-wing, anti-islam propagandists)
1222. ivan osokin - 6/10/2002 12:01:51 PM
the real issue is when our own citizens start acting against us. If the news reports are right, it looks like that time is already here
what defines 'acting against us'? were the anti-war protests during vietnam 'acting against us'? what about the recent protests in seattle and washington?
the vague notion of "acting against us" is exactly the kind of nebulous rhetoric that allows for more and more inclusion of, and delineation of, "enemies". i suppose that because i was in a protest at the republican national convention in philly, that i was "acting against us" and therefore a dangerous citizen.
if "acting against us" involves bodily harm, inflicting damage to innocent people, etc., then i guess we need to consider whether our own police state is not "acting against us" itself. i think that when the philly police department dropped a bomb on a building, destroying a whole block, to kill the radical MOVE group, were they acting 'against us'? i'd say they were.
after all...who is the "us", cal? is it the person who thinks the government may be wrong and is vocal about it? who uses what used to be a right (free assembly) to voice their opinions? if that's the case, then i suppose the american revolution was a bunch of people acting against us as well.
your phrase leaves too much room to include just about anyone....but i suspect that you have your own ideas about who this "us" should be.
1223. CalGal - 6/10/2002 12:12:27 PM
More on Padilla
Ashcroft said Mujahir had served prison time in the United States in the early 1990s, then traveled to Afghanistan and Pakistan during 2001 and met with al-Qaida officials. Ashcroft said Mujahir ``trained with the enemy, including studying how to wire explosive devices and researching radiological dispersion devices.''
Ashcroft said al-Qaida apparently believed that Mujahir would be permitted to travel freely within the United States because of his U.S. citizenship and because he carried a U.S. passport.
The probable target of Mujahir's plans to detonate the bomb was Washington, according to a U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Another government official, who spoke only on condition of anonymity, said the intelligence that led to Mujahir's arrest came from captured al Qaida leader Abu Zubaydah during recent interrogations.
This official said Mujahir is a former Chicago street gang member who converted to Islam after serving time in the United States, and met with an al-Qaida leader in 2001, before returning to the United States.
1224. CalGal - 6/10/2002 12:13:51 PM
what defines 'acting against us'?
Gosh, I don't know. Exploding dirty bombs in DC, flying planes into the Pentagon and the WTC--these things seem pretty clear cut.
1225. godlessclif - 6/10/2002 12:14:10 PM
Ivan I just noticed your thread named Christianism, a Global Threat. I was just kidding, but you did it. LOL
1226. jexster - 6/10/2002 12:17:41 PM
Jose Padilla
Anyone else find it more than passing strange that one DS goes by an assumed Gringo name?
1227. jexster - 6/10/2002 12:18:50 PM
And resides in the Washington DC area?
What else might he have assumed?
Gender?
Party affliation?
Unrequited Moron love?
1228. PelleNilsson - 6/10/2002 12:50:38 PM
CalGal
Pipes and others state very clearly that Wahabbis are not Islamists.
Well, discussing Muslim terrorism under a definition that specifically excludes the movement that gave rise to the Taliban and its offshoot Al Qaida, the main target of the US anti-terrorism effort, seems senseless (to be polite about it).
1229. godlessclif - 6/10/2002 1:04:48 PM
Jose is a gringo name? That must be why Ashcroft is using the new powers of the patriot act to round up Mexicans, or are they Mexicanists now. Remember the Alamo.
1230. godlessclif - 6/10/2002 1:07:07 PM
In view of the Jose Padilla arrest I thinkw e should have Homeland Security investigate the employee of the Mexicanist fast food chain "Pollo Tropical" for a possible E-Coli plot.
1231. godlessclif - 6/10/2002 1:09:35 PM
There a man under your bed
And a little green man in your head
Your not going crazy your just upset
'cause there a man in you chewing you
day and night eating you
{chorus}
Paranoia will destroy ya
Paranois will destroy ya
1232. iiibbb - 6/10/2002 1:24:06 PM
This from someone that said that 'personal responsibility' is code for letting business get away with screwing the public.
paranoia
1233. iiibbb - 6/10/2002 1:27:21 PM
I read some interesting articles about the parallels of the exploits of Bin Ladin and the "Mad Mahdi".
This article is similar in scope to the one I read.
1234. ivan osokin - 6/10/2002 1:49:03 PM
because the real issue is when our own citizens start acting against us
cal, once more your grip on reading comprehension is questionable.
you said "when our own citizens start acting against us"...which is why i asked you what you meant by "acting against us" as i'm a citizen and want to be sure i don't "act against" you.
Gosh, I don't know. Exploding dirty bombs in DC, flying planes into the Pentagon and the WTC--these things seem pretty clear cut.
are you saying that these are all acts of fellow citizens? hmmmm...
1235. CalGal - 6/10/2002 1:53:01 PM
are you saying that these are all acts of fellow citizens?
The first one, yes.
1236. pseudoerasmus - 6/10/2002 2:44:20 PM
Message # 1182
Not at all. Turkey is a secular Islamic regime which appears to have given up the idea that there is any religious justification for jihad on dar-al-Kufr. Would that all Islamic societies disallowed that genocidal tendency of Islam.
Which Muslim states today hold the idea that there is a religious justification for jihad on non-Muslims ?
1237. jexster - 6/10/2002 2:50:10 PM
If the Padilla Mexicans DO attack us with their dirty bombs, be sure to follow these steps:
1. Take off your clothes
2. Take a bath
3. Put on an N95 mask
Relax UR now ready for some hot sex.
Remember dirty bombs can be fun.
1238. iiibbb - 6/10/2002 2:51:08 PM
A better question is which Muslim states today have large active groups which expouse a Jihad on non-Muslims? How tolerant are is the general populous to these movements such as the apparent tolerance in Saudi Arabia? How much direct or indirect support is given to these extremist groups?
1239. pseudoerasmus - 6/10/2002 2:52:31 PM
"A better question is which Muslim states today have large active groups which expouse a Jihad on non-Muslims?"
Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
1240. iiibbb - 6/10/2002 2:52:55 PM
Only an islamic state already in the margin will take an openly anti-non-Muslims position.
1241. pseudoerasmus - 6/10/2002 2:55:11 PM
"Not at all. Turkey is a secular Islamic regime which appears to have given up the idea that there is any religious justification for jihad on dar-al-Kufr."
Ironically, Atatürk's secular Turkish state is responsible for one of the most brutal deportations of Christians in history --the expulsion of nearly 2 million Greeks from Anatolia. Many thousands died, of course, in the process.
But then what does a hack like Concerned know any way?
1242. PelleNilsson - 6/10/2002 3:09:19 PM
But ironically this "population exchange" was approved, even concocted, by the international community of the time. I think the explorer and humanitarian Fridtjof Nansen had a hand in it.The scheme that is, not the brutality.
1243. pseudoerasmus - 6/10/2002 3:13:36 PM
You refer to the accord signed at Lausanne in 1923. That treaty merely ratified a fait which was in the process of becoming accompli.
1244. godlessclif - 6/10/2002 3:30:48 PM
Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan
All are our allies and all support Islamist Jihad. I would call that a serious foreign policy blunder.
1245. godlessclif - 6/10/2002 3:31:34 PM
Are the black muslims in this country also a Homland Gestapo target?
1246. godlessclif - 6/10/2002 3:33:00 PM
You call the deportation of the Anatolian Greeks a population exchange. What do you call the Cherokee trail of tears? A nature hike?
1247. godlessclif - 6/10/2002 3:34:52 PM
You won't even notice dirty bombs when Bush starts testing his mini-nukes and driving up the background radiation. 400 millirems anyone?
1248. sakonige - 6/10/2002 3:41:13 PM
Are the black muslims in this country also a Homland Gestapo target?
I'll bet they are now.
1249. ivan osokin - 6/10/2002 3:43:54 PM
gdldsclf:
the black muslims have long been a target of the government anyhow...since the days of noble drew ali. and they would posit that it goes back even further than that. i guess we'll have to see if tom "fuck the constitution" ridge can satisfy his desire to silence all radical voices and his racism by locking up black muslims on suspicion that they may be connected with the enigmatic "al-qaeda" (a term as concrete as saying 'the mafia').
1250. Erin R. - 6/10/2002 3:55:53 PM
I would not think black Muslims would be all that interested in blowing up other people. Then again, I never thought hispanic Muslims would be interested in doing same. So there you go.
1251. pseudoerasmus - 6/10/2002 3:56:45 PM
"You call the deportation of the Anatolian Greeks a population exchange."
Well, it's often called a "population exchange" because the Greeks also expelled Turks from their territories, at the same the Turks were expelling the Greeks from their territories.
(In reality, this "exchange" did not take place along ethnic lines, but according to confession. Muslim Greeks were allowed to stay in Turkey, but Christian Turks were not allowed.)
1252. PelleNilsson - 6/10/2002 4:00:11 PM
But ironically this "population exchange" was approved, even concocted, by the international community of the time. I think the explorer and humanitarian Fridtjof Nansen had a hand in it.The scheme that is, not the brutality.
1253. PelleNilsson - 6/10/2002 4:04:42 PM
Sorry about the delayed double post. Very mysterious.
1254. iiibbb - 6/10/2002 4:31:58 PM
The same military history magazine I was reading in an earlier post also had a pretty intersting article about the battle for the Golan heights.
Arab states have always resented the formation of a Jewish state (A brainchild of the United Nations). Between random shelling of Jewish civilians by Syria from the Golan heights, and the general endorsement of Arab states to push the Jews into the sea... who can blame Isreal for their attitudes and actions today?
Now-a-days people seem to like to ignore the behavior of Arabs prior to Isreal's rise to military superiority. Now we talk about how awful Isreal behaves.
I guess I look at what each of them targets. Isreal takes action against Palestinian infrastructure. Palestinian (and supporters) attack innocent women and children, avoids military targets, and blames the US for everything.
I guess when it comes down to it I support Isreal's fundamental right to exist. Since many arabs say they won't be happy until Jews no longer exist in the middle east... I guess I'm at an impass.
The way I see it, the US is damned if we do, damned if we don't in the eyes of the arabs. When we try to temper Isreal's responses we're butting in. If we step back we're giving Isreal free license to harass Palestinians. We can't win the war of Islamic opinion, therefore we should just do whatever suits our interest unappologetically.
At some point Islamic countries had better
Today at the DoD