Spooky stuff

[Slamz]

Link I saw on another forum... There's a NYTimes article about it too.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.womenswallstreet.com/WWS/article_landing.aspx?titleid=1&articleid=711">http://www.womenswallstreet.com/WWS/art ... icleid=711</a><!-- m -->

I wonder how many people on that plane were covertly undoing their seatbelts and getting ready to gouge some eyeballs there at the end?

[Thudz]

This just proves that whomever orchestrated 9/11 has us acting exactly how they want us to act. Every American is going to have their eyes on the Arab guys. Well guess what, you don't have to be Arab to blow up a plane or fly it into a building. This women and the whole article is ridiculous.

[Sigmire]

see that's just it. I understand the writer's concerns and questioning why certain things weren't done before letting those guys on board but there are some flaws with her logic.

If the US officials (and airline officials) are going to go thru a middle eastern guy's bag then they need to go thru everyone's. Not for the racial profiling (though it would piss off a lot of anti-racism stuff) but because the terrorists will just get one of their non-arab looking buddies to do the dirty work.

Problem is that in the U.S. we have so many fuckin whiners that will find it intrusion of privacy (covered under the constitution) that the gov't and airlines will be constantly getting fined.

I think that the air marshalls did the right thing, they were there (woot!) in case one of these guys pulled a weapon or bomb or whatever. Also there have been cases since 9-11 of people getting attacked by passengers becaues they tried to do something stupid. Like that one guy who charged the cockpit of an airplane and ended up being killed by passengers because of it. Turns out he was a retard and was mad that he wasn't allowed into the cockpit anymore but oh well, the passengers just showed that they weren't going to allow someone (anyone) to do that sort of thing anymore.

If there is going to be any more hijackings in the U.S. or plane explosions then it's going have to happen where the rest of the plane does not know about it otherwise that plane is going to get messy as passengers (and air marshalls) try to stop the happenings.

[Grieve]

Interesting article. I can understand the journalist's concern...I'm sure many of us would have similar worries, especially if we were travelling with young children. I also think there's a good chance she misinterpreted perfectly innocent activities as something more. But who knows? It's one of the consequences of 9/11...very unfortunate for people who fly, and even more unfortunate for innocent arabs who are looked on with suspicion.

My guess is that her "friendly" man in the airport turned cold more because he was getting suspicious looks from everyone, moreso than because he was an evil terrorist.

[Slamz]

Saying "we're acting exactly how they want us to act" is silly. You think Osama wants Americans to hate Arabs? That's not his goal. What would be the point of that? His goal is to get us out of the middle east, to get us out of Afghanistan, out of Iraq and to stop us from helping Israel.

The fact that he's using arabs to try and accomplish this is just because that's the tools he has available. The American public's reaction is really just Osama's plan backfiring. He doesn't understand American attitudes. Spain, now, that worked how he wanted. He hit them, they gave up. But Americans on average are hard headed and hitting us just makes us angrier.

This lady's reaction simply pinpoints Osama's failure. Having Americans be suspicious of middle easterns is nearly the opposite of what he wants, it's just a consequence he can't seem to avoid because he can't find enough non-arabs who agree with him enough to do his work. He hoped he could hit us and make us give up, instead it made us angrier and now it's way too late to try the other plan, which would be to build up American sympathy for the plight of the middle eastern man.

He's stuck with his shitty plan of hitting us and has accidentally generated hatred where he what he really wanted was apathy and retreat.


Saying we should check everyone is really what needs to be done, but I'm sure the logistics of that would end up being some kind of nightmare. You'd probably have to redesign half the airports just to accomodate that many extra screening stations. Eventually, yes, this is what should be done. Today? We'll have to come up with something to fill the gap between what we need to do and what we can do.


Yes, you don't have to be arab to blow up a plane. If those 14 guys had been overweight white male Americans in their 40's wearing business suits, would anyone have even thought anything was suspicious? Probably not. Thing is, Osama's pool of volunteers is about 99% arab. As much as he would LOVE to get 14 white, fat, balding men in their 40's to recruit to his cause, the fact that he hasn't already is a pretty good sign that he can't.

You still, ideally, want to check everyone, because sometimes crazy fat white men have personal issues they'd like to express with explosives too, but if you're looking for Osama's friends, well, most of them really are arab.

[Slamz]

...which sort of brings me back to another thought I was working on there.

Osama is an idiot.

Americans really are saps sometimes. We love to think we're do-gooders. If Osama had spent his millions on an advertising campaign to build up American sympathy, it almost certainly would have worked out better for him. Instead of trying to get the American people behind him he tried to beat us into submission, and that just doesn't work. If I had to pick the top two attributes of the American people as a whole, I'd vote for:

#1: We're saps, we like to think we can make the world a better place and
#2: We react very poorly to the thought that anyone is picking on us

The only base of support for Iraq War II was American anger over 9/11 and American sympathy for anyone having to live under the rule of someone like Saddam. Stories of Saddam's terrorism against his own people are what drives the American people towards, if not supporting the war, at least not being real active in complaining about it. Enough people think we're doing good (#1) and are still mad about 9/11 (#2).

So Osama just fucked it all up. He thought the top two attributes were:
#1: Want life to be easy
#2: Wish everyone would leave us alone

That was apparently true for the Spanish. Not Americans, on the whole.

So yes, American feelings towards arabs are, on average, going downhill fast.

But that definately wasn't what he wanted.

[Zeel]

That article scared the shit outta me.

I had to fly 2 months to the day after 9-11 and I remember feeling like a real asshole as I scrutinized every brown person that got on the plane. If I saw the kind of behavior that was described in the article, I don't know what I would have done. I'm nearly shaking with anger as I sit here typing this...

I'm so torn on this topic because I am a huge believer in privacy and am totally against racial profiling, but at what point do we stop looking at it as proactive screening and start looking at it like an on-going investigation? That is where I get all fuzzy...

Two cops hear on the radio "Two black males driving a white car just robbed a 7-eleven"

Does that give them the right to stop every pair of black guys that happens to have a white car? Maybe if they were more specific about the guys or the car, but I think it is the generality that kills it.

"Looking out for Arabs" is not nearly specific enough, but how do we improve the description of what we are looking for? OK, everybody keep an eye out for Arabs with orthopedic shoes... Give me a break. Arab musicians? Wait, I got it... Arab musicians with McDonalds bags and cell phones in orthopedic shoes. I can see the alert from the DHS now.

I've come to the realization that some people's liberties are going to be jeopardized if we are going to be able to secure the airlines in the short term. I hate it, but I think that is the only way.

[Sigmire]

I've come to the realization that some people's liberties are going to be jeopardized if we are going to be able to secure the airlines in the short term. I hate it, but I think that is the only way.

This is exactly what needs to happen but it won't because the american public won't have it.

Actually, the perception of our citizens will change when the next big attack happens on our soil. Because that is what it'll take for us to let the government do what it needs to keep us safe from those nuts.... or any nut of that sort.


Just to add onto something that Grumples mentioned, Osama and those kind of thinkers believed in the same thing (and screwed up) that the Japanese did in WWII. One of the reasons that we were attacked by them was the belief that since we have a ton of different races, nationalities, religions, beliefs, backgrounds, etc that we will not be able to band together to defend ourselves... OOPS!

[Thudz]

It has never been proven that Osama bin Laden or Al Qaida were behind the attacks on 9/11. The video tape of him admitting to the attacks was found to be fake, many of the 19 names used by the hijackers were stolen names. 7 of the 19 named people are still alive and well in their countries, some having never even visited the US before. The CIA has admitted to all this you just can't read about it in the US media. The fact is we don't know who planned, funded and executed this attack. For all we know this attack was executed for the specific purpose to justify are war for democracy across the middle east. If that was the purpose then it's working perfectly. Therefore I say, whomever executed those attacks has us acting exactlly how they want us to act.

Hijackers used stolen identities :
http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/m...iden23.xml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_...559151.stm
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/21/inv.id.theft/

[Slamz]

I wouldn't have argued ID theft. I wasn't aware that was even an issue. If I was going to hijack a plane and was known in some circles as someone who might be inclined to do this, I think I'd use a fake ID too.


Here's an interesting article talking about the possibility of the confession being fake that seems a little more fair about pointing out different bits of evidence rather than just the bits that support one theory:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,619181,00.html">http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/s ... 81,00.html</a><!-- m -->

They also present an interesting theory which is that the video might be a fake or semi-fake, but the trickster is Osama himself.

Rather than being tricked by the US government into thinking exactly what they want you to think, perhaps you're being tricked by Osama bin Laden to think exactly what HE wants you to think.

Funny how the American government can do these conspiracies but nobody ever thinks Saddam or Osama could ever do a conspiracy themselves.

I wonder why that is.

[Grieve]

Saying "we're acting exactly how they want us to act" is silly. You think Osama wants Americans to hate Arabs? That's not his goal.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Americans hating Arabs means more anti-American sentiment means more poeople flocking to his cause. Remember he WANTS a holy war against the west, so I think Thudz is right (for a change). Driving east and west apart is exactly what he wants.

The only base of support for Iraq War II was American anger over 9/11 and American sympathy for anyone having to live under the rule of someone like Saddam. Stories of Saddam's terrorism against his own people are what drives the American people towards, if not supporting the war, at least not being real active in complaining about it. Enough people think we're doing good (#1) and are still mad about 9/11 (#2).

That's a nice theory, but I don't think most Americans gave a rat's arse about any of that before the war. If we invaded countries based on their treatment of their citizens, we'd be in a hell of a lot more wars right now. China (Tibet/Tiananmen Square)? Apartheid-era South Africa? Israel? Cambodia in the "killing fields" era?

Even countries like Somalia, Haiti and Rwanda where the US/UN did try to intervene were pretty half-arsed attempts. Tends to need to be a stronger reason for intervention (such as oil or communist expansionism) that just poor suffering people.

[Thudz]

My whole reasoning behind calling this women and this article silly is that it's been drummed into our heads that arabs = terrorists. What evidence have we seen, besides the 19 mugshots half of which are of men still alive, that arabs boarded these planes and flew them into those buildings? None. Could they have been arab, yes, could they have been white, yes, brown, yes, yellow yes, christian, yes, muslim, yes, athiest, yes, american, yes, israeli, yes, iraqi, yes.

Everyday since 9/11 the media has bombarded us with the idea that arabs are terrorist. Are some arabs "terrorist"? Certainly, are some white, black, orange and yellow people "terroists"? Certainly. Somebody is trying really hard to make us feel no compassion for the arab world. Why? Because we would never allow our country to fight a war against a group of people the masses felt compassion for.

It may be just me, but when I see a group of arab men together, I don't duck and run or think Al Qaida.

[Slamz]

That's the thing: Osama wanted a holy war because he thought that would get the Americans to leave. He thought that if he hit us, we'd take to the streets and demand Bush's resignation and demand all troops leave the middle east and demand we stop talking to Israel.

What he GOT was half the American army on his doorstep and a majority of the American people supporting it. Rather than hitting the streets and waving a sign that says "LEAVE MIDDLE EAST NOW" I did what I'm sure a majority of Americans did: I turned on the TV and anxiously waited to see whose ass we were going to kick.

It's like I said, Osama misunderstood the average American attitude. We really do have a lot of the Texan cowboy mentality in the American population. Someone blows up a building, we don't say "Oh, this is terrible, we shouldn't have been in the middle east" we say, "Oh, this is terrible, let's find out who was behind it and go kick their ass." It's easy to say "Oh, it's just Bush saying this" and while a lot of those of us here in this forum are, at best, iffy on the subject of Iraq War II, there are plenty of Americans who still fully support it. They never really needed WMD or Osama tie ins, the fact that Iraq had a guy we didn't like and we were already in the area was good enough for a lot of people. We were already swinging the stick and Bush just used the momentum to carry over into another country and I myself in not entirely sure he was wrong to do this.

So yes, Osama manipulated us with that attack, just in the complete opposite way from how he wanted.



As for American attitudes, it's always a balance between wanting to be helpful and not wanting to get lots of Americans killed in the process. Somalia is a great example. The only reason we were there as far as I understand was American outcry over petty warlords holding up (or stealing) food supplies meant for the starving masses. The American people demanded some action, but then decided we weren't so committed to it that we were willing to risk a lot of casualties. We felt the U.N. wasn't doing it's fair share and we don't feel it's a burden we should have to take up alone.

I'm sure a lot of Americans feel that "something ought to be done" about the massacres that occur in African wars but we also see a big potential for it to be bloody and we don't think it's fair that we go it alone there either.

If France, England, Germany, Italy, Russia and Canada all said, "This is terrible, something ought to be done, we're sending 10,000 troops each down to stop the bloodshed in Africa" I have no doubt that America would join in, but since the rest of the world doesn't give a damn, there's just a limit to what the American people can stand to commit to.

The real shame isn't that America doesn't get involved in all of these conflicts to Make The World a Better Place, it's that the European nations don't even pretend to care. You'd think they, of all people, would realize that when your neighbor's yard is on fire, you need to go put it out. If you wait til your yard is on fire, it'll be too late. It's easy to say, "Oh, it's just Africa" but oh-its-just-africa is the same place with plenty of mines for precious minerals and radioactive materials. A proper genocidal warlord who knew what he was doing could end up being more than a casual threat, if not directly, then indirectly by who he decides to sell his goodies to.

Like I said during that one discussion, the European memory seems to stretch about 20 years, then stops. "Isolationism works! We leave everyone alone and they leave us alone. Hey, who's this funny guy with the mustache? Why are his tanks attacking our cities? Why is he rounding up millions of people and they never come back?" (20 years pass) "Isolationism works! We leave everyone alone and they leave us alone."

It is, shall we say, bloody stupid if you ask me. In a world with missiles and bombs, there's no such thing as "someone else's problem".

Most of the opponets to the American strategy think everything would be fine if we'd just mind our own business, but I keep having to point out "we tried that once and it didn't work". What's that saying? Fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice, I must be European? Why is America the only country that remembers World War II and the utter failure of the isolationist policy?

[Slamz]

My whole reasoning behind calling this women and this article silly is that it's been drummed into our heads that arabs = terrorists.

I don't think it's drummed into our heads that arabs = terrorists.

I think it's drummed into our heads that terrorists = arabs.

The fact is that American policies are pissing middle easterners.

If your plane gets hijacked by terrorists, odds are pretty damn good they're going to be people from the middle east. That's pretty much the history of it, isn't it? When was the last time an American was executed by a terrorist that wasn't from the middle east?

I'm right there with you in saying racism is bad, but facts are facts. Right now you're a hell of a lot more likely to get hijacked by people from Saudi Arabia than by people from France.

[Thudz]

Don't you think we should prove who attacked us on 9/11 before we rush off to war? Whom are we to fight? Oh wait! We get to fight everyone we've always wanted too now and just say they are terrorists! That's much better then proving who actually attacked us! We got a free pass now. Leave it to us to always have our convient never ending war. How many times do they have to tell us this "war on terror" is going to be a very very long one. Ok ok, I get it, if we didn't have a war on terror you'd have to find some other excuse for war. How bout another cold war? Anything works aslong as you keep the American people scared!

[Grieve]

Actually the UN was in Somalia before the US arrived, and there were still 19,000 UN troops there when the US pulled out. Likewise there were thousands of UN troops from many different countries in Bosnia and countless other wars/disputes. It's a bit disingenuous to claim that America is the only one who ever does anything about world problems.

When you consider that Britain, for example, is a fraction of the size of the US (and with a fraction of the population, money and armed forces), I'd say they make a very sizable contribution to world peacekeeping.

[Slamz]

As for who attacked us on 9/11, how do you propose we prove exactly which group did it? The fact that certain groups declared war on the United States is good enough for me. The fact that we keep finding high ranking members in Iraq tells me we must have been looking in the right place after all. I'm not even sure it matters if Osama's money or planning was behind 9/11. He runs terrorist training camps, teaching people what a good idea it is to hate and attack America. It's like we're not real sure he pulled the trigger, but we caught him fleeing the scene of the crime at 90mph with gunpowder on his fingers and a dead body in his trunk. I'm not sure we need to prove he pulled the trigger, we have plenty of other charges we can press.

I'd also be surprised if we managed to pin it on some other totally unrelated group. What group of extremists has the numbers, money and foresight to send people through flight school and then send people to America with spending money and plane tickets? These aren't just some disgruntled refugees who got together some loose change, they're people with financial backing. I doubt we'll ever know for sure who did funded it unless someone stands up and says, "It was me", but we can make a pretty good guess.

The bottom line is these people will keep attacking us so long as we have anything to do with the middle east. Even if all we did was buy shoes from Israel, there'd be extremist groups calling for our destruction. So I see three options:
1) Stay there and fight them
2) Stay there and don't fight them
3) Completely get out of the middle east

#1 is what we're doing now. The main argument against this is that we're just generating more hate and thus more terrorists. I would argue that they hate us anyway, they're going to fight us anyway, at least now they're attacking marines in Iraq and not civilians in America. I also think it's safe to say that 99.9% of Iraqi's don't actually hate Americans enough to want to kill us, it's just a handful of (mostly foreign) extremists that we're dealing with. A lot of Iraqi's were glad to see Saddam go and are happy to see the work being done on the infrastructure. Why do you think Iraqi's keep getting killed while standing in line to join the police force, yet the next day more of them stand in line? They don't like the extremists either and want to take their country back just as badly as we want them to have it back.

#2 is what we were doing. Problem is we can't stay in the middle east, trying to bring stability to the region and not have people want to fight us. So #2 just isn't viable. We tried it and we had 4 planes get hijacked and smashed as a result. #2 is like #1 except all the new terrorists you generate don't have any marines to fight, so they just keep growing in power until they spill out of the country and start causing real problems.

#3 is the old pre-WW2 head-in-the-sand act. We pull out and hope like hell that things work out and nobody builds nukes nobody builds a huge army and takes over the whole area and dominates the oil supply and uses the money to build an even bigger army, etc. In the light of history, I don't think this has ever been a good idea and it's even less of a good idea in the age of long range missiles and terrorism, where there truely is no such thing as someone else's problem.

Personally, I would be very concerned if America switched to isolationist policies. I think it would just be a matter of time before the next madman with a huge military and a desire to do something with it showed up. Isolationist supporters always seem to downplay that possibility despite the fact that it's happened all the damn time throughout history. I don't see why they suddenly think humanity is all peace and cupcakes today.