Islamists target Arizona base

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: manowar821
So retarded... Who in the hell believes this crap anymore?

What exactly does this mean? When there's possible evidence and word coming out of interviews/interrogations, we aren't supposed to believe that crap anymore? Why?

This incident was not invented by a politician or journalist. It came from the "bad guys" and was properly proven to be a fabrication. Sounds like a good job by our guys if anything.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: manowar821
So retarded... Who in the hell believes this crap anymore?

What exactly does this mean? When there's possible evidence and word coming out of interviews/interrogations, we aren't supposed to believe that crap anymore? Why?

This incident was not invented by a politician or journalist. It came from the "bad guys" and was properly proven to be a fabrication. Sounds like a good job by our guys if anything.

You're asking this of somebody who believes 9/11 conspiracies...

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: manowar821
So retarded... Who in the hell believes this crap anymore?

What exactly does this mean? When there's possible evidence and word coming out of interviews/interrogations, we aren't supposed to believe that crap anymore? Why?

This incident was not invented by a politician or journalist. It came from the "bad guys" and was properly proven to be a fabrication. Sounds like a good job by our guys if anything.

You're asking this of somebody who believes 9/11 conspiracies...

Cute, but it's back to your kennel, now.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

The whole thing sounds like an episode of '24'...

LOL, that's funny.

Islamists target <insert plausible location here>!!!!

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Rainsford

The whole thing sounds like an episode of '24'...

LOL, that's funny.

Islamists target <insert plausible location here>!!!!

It's really not funny at all, and it's nothing like '24'

 

[Wheezer]

Let's see:

1920
Sept. 16, New York City: TNT bomb planted in unattended horse-drawn wagon exploded on Wall Street opposite House of Morgan, killing 35 people and injuring hundreds more. Bolshevist or anarchist terrorists believed responsible, but crime never solved.

1975
Jan. 24, New York City: bomb set off in historic Fraunces Tavern killed 4 and injured more than 50 people. Puerto Rican nationalist group (FALN) claimed responsibility, and police tied 13 other bombings to the group.

1993
Feb. 26, New York City: bomb exploded in basement garage of World Trade Center, killing 6 and injuring at least 1,040 others. In 1995, militant Islamist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 9 others were convicted of conspiracy charges, and in 1998, Ramzi Yousef, believed to have been the mastermind, was convicted of the bombing. Al-Qaeda involvement is suspected.

1995
April 19, Oklahoma City: car bomb exploded outside federal office building, collapsing wall and floors. 168 people were killed, including 19 children and 1 person who died in rescue effort. Over 220 buildings sustained damage. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols later convicted in the antigovernment plot to avenge the Branch Davidian standoff in Waco, Tex., exactly 2 years earlier.

2001
Sept. 11, New York City, Arlington, Va., and Shanksville, Pa.: hijackers crashed 2 commercial jets into twin towers of World Trade Center; 2 more hijacked jets were crashed into the Pentagon and a field in rural Pa. Total dead and missing numbered 2,9921: 2,749 in New York City, 184 at the Pentagon, 40 in Pa., and 19 hijackers. Islamic al-Qaeda terrorist group blamed.

Now is it just me or is that 5 more incidents that happened that should not have happened?

It seems to me that the way to prevent things like this is to be proactive is it not?

Which is what we seem to be doing, but every time we are and it gets published, it is just chalked up to "neo-cons" worried about the "boogeyman"....well the "boogeyman" has been successful 5 time already.....just on our turf.....how many times does he need to succeed before some of you admit there is a real threat that we need to focus on....no matter what part of the world it comes from...6...7...8...9?....or should it be in the double digits?

 

[DarkThinker]

Man this story is awesome, it makes for some great possible material like for example:

A Mexican and a Muslim-Extremist walk into a bar....and blow it up

Extremist: Que Paso! Que Paso! I want you to write an essay about Death to the Infidels!
Mexican:Si!

 

[palehorse]

You guys are too ready to dismiss anything to do with the GWOT, and you aren't looking at these connections from the right angle.

I said it before, the question you need to ask is this: what would each party gain from such a relationship?

Gains:
Islamic Extremists: access to the well-established tried-and-true smuggling routes for people and supplies, false ID's, and facilitators, local hidden storage, etc.
Cartels: more money... weapons, weapons, and more weapons... as well as training for all kinds of nastiness and sneakiness.

Losses:
Islamic Extremists: nothing. they never really have much to lose... after all, even life isn't important to them!
Cartels: perhaps more heat will come down on their operations, but I personally believe that they're too blinded by the possible gains to care! They probably believe that they are better than those who would come after them, and, in some cases, they're probably right. After all, we've been going after them with all kinds of heat for decades, and it hasn't even dented their operations!

The connections exist, and anyone who denies that fact is simply uninformed.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
You guys are too ready to dismiss anything to do with the GWOT, and you aren't looking at these connections from the right angle.

I said it before, the question you need to ask is this: what would each party gain from such a relationship?

Gains:
Islamic Extremists: access to the well-established tried-and-true smuggling routes for people and supplies, false ID's, and facilitators, local hidden storage, etc.
Cartels: more money... weapons, weapons, and more weapons... as well as training for all kinds of nastiness and sneakiness.

Losses:
Islamic Extremists: nothing. they never really have much to lose... after all, even life isn't important to them!
Cartels: perhaps more heat will come down on their operations, but I personally believe that they're too blinded by the possible gains to care! They probably believe that they are better than those who would come after them, and, in some cases, they're probably right. After all, we've been going after them with all kinds of heat for decades, and it hasn't even dented their operations!

The connections exist, and anyone who denies that fact is simply uninformed.

You'll excuse me if I disagree. Drug cartels have one main goal, and that is to sell drugs. When they use force, it's almost entirely of the straightforward kind. Terrorists are not Navy SEALs, I really don't think there is a lot of training they can provide that the cartels would care about (maybe IED construction?). As for the money, I think drug cartels have access to FAR more money than terrorist groups do.

I'm not saying there is NO benefit to either group, I'm just saying it hardly seems worth it for either side. The benefits aren't worth it, especially for the cartels. As you pointed out, a LOT of extra heat would come down on them for helping terrorist groups...and I think you're way too ready to discount that. I do not think the cartels are blinded by greed, quite the opposite in fact, they seem pretty coldly calculating. They're survived the heat we've thrown at them for decades, and made a shit-ton of money in the process. Why in the world would they want to disrupt that for the little extra money a terrorist group could provide?

I won't say such a relationship would be impossible, but it seems pretty unlikely to me. It seems far more likely that fears of such a partnership are driven by uninformed Americans conflating the two modern boogeymen without really thinking things through. It's been the topic of enough bad movies that it almost certainly HAS to be false.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Wheezer
Let's see:

1920
Sept. 16, New York City: TNT bomb planted in unattended horse-drawn wagon exploded on Wall Street opposite House of Morgan, killing 35 people and injuring hundreds more. Bolshevist or anarchist terrorists believed responsible, but crime never solved.

1975
Jan. 24, New York City: bomb set off in historic Fraunces Tavern killed 4 and injured more than 50 people. Puerto Rican nationalist group (FALN) claimed responsibility, and police tied 13 other bombings to the group.

1993
Feb. 26, New York City: bomb exploded in basement garage of World Trade Center, killing 6 and injuring at least 1,040 others. In 1995, militant Islamist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 9 others were convicted of conspiracy charges, and in 1998, Ramzi Yousef, believed to have been the mastermind, was convicted of the bombing. Al-Qaeda involvement is suspected.

1995
April 19, Oklahoma City: car bomb exploded outside federal office building, collapsing wall and floors. 168 people were killed, including 19 children and 1 person who died in rescue effort. Over 220 buildings sustained damage. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols later convicted in the antigovernment plot to avenge the Branch Davidian standoff in Waco, Tex., exactly 2 years earlier.

2001
Sept. 11, New York City, Arlington, Va., and Shanksville, Pa.: hijackers crashed 2 commercial jets into twin towers of World Trade Center; 2 more hijacked jets were crashed into the Pentagon and a field in rural Pa. Total dead and missing numbered 2,9921: 2,749 in New York City, 184 at the Pentagon, 40 in Pa., and 19 hijackers. Islamic al-Qaeda terrorist group blamed.

Now is it just me or is that 5 more incidents that happened that should not have happened?

It seems to me that the way to prevent things like this is to be proactive is it not?

Which is what we seem to be doing, but every time we are and it gets published, it is just chalked up to "neo-cons" worried about the "boogeyman"....well the "boogeyman" has been successful 5 time already.....just on our turf.....how many times does he need to succeed before some of you admit there is a real threat that we need to focus on....no matter what part of the world it comes from...6...7...8...9?....or should it be in the double digits?

Wow, a whole 5 incidents in almost 100 years. Talk about a trend that we should focused 100% of our national energy on! :roll:

Nobody is saying we should IGNORE terrorism, but the actual impact of it doesn't seem proportional to this collective obsession we've had with it for the past few years.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Despite a lot of FUD to the contrary, there is NO public evidence that Mexicans, drug cartels or otherwise, are in any way involved with helping terrorists.

fixed.

Your detector is very broken.

You're right, I'm talking about public evidence. But while I can't claim to be briefed on every single intelligence related event (who are you, the DNI?), I will say that my bullshit detector is usually pretty accurate. And in this case, I don't think it's malfunctioning.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Rainsford

The whole thing sounds like an episode of '24'...

LOL, that's funny.

Islamists target <insert plausible location here>!!!!

It's really not funny at all, and it's nothing like '24'

Real life might not be, but it sure seems like peoples' ideas about terrorism certainly take more from TV shows and movies than real life.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Rainsford

The whole thing sounds like an episode of '24'...

LOL, that's funny.

Islamists target <insert plausible location here>!!!!

It's really not funny at all, and it's nothing like '24'

I wouldn't expect a drama queen like you to see the humor in the comparison.

 

[NaughtyGeek]

Pure FUD!

 

[PokerGuy]

Lets see.... Washington Times/Fox only. Check. FUD. Check. Involves Terrists. Check. Involves illegal border crossing. Check.

Yep, sounds real believable!

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Rainsford

The whole thing sounds like an episode of '24'...

LOL, that's funny.

Islamists target <insert plausible location here>!!!!

It's really not funny at all, and it's nothing like '24'

I wouldn't expect a drama queen like you to see the humor in the comparison.

When it comes to terrorism, and genuine intelligence-driven threats, there is absolutely nothing funny about it at all. Anyone who believes otherwise is one sick SOB.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Rainsford

The whole thing sounds like an episode of '24'...

LOL, that's funny.

Islamists target <insert plausible location here>!!!!

It's really not funny at all, and it's nothing like '24'

I wouldn't expect a drama queen like you to see the humor in the comparison.

When it comes to terrorism, and genuine intelligence-driven threats, there is absolutely nothing funny about it at all. Anyone who believes otherwise is one sick SOB.

I hope you're not talking about me...

I don't find actual terrorism funny in the least, but people's fears and perceptions about terrorism (especially when they seem to be driven by bad movies and TV shows) are downright hilarious. 9/11 was not at all funny, but the ridiculous airport security measures enacted post-9/11 are pretty funny. Using liquid explosives to blow up a plane isn't funny, but the "liquid ban" is.

Same thing goes here, a REAL terrorist attack would not be funny, but these movie plot "threats" can be pretty humorous.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Rainsford

The whole thing sounds like an episode of '24'...

LOL, that's funny.

Islamists target <insert plausible location here>!!!!

It's really not funny at all, and it's nothing like '24'

I wouldn't expect a drama queen like you to see the humor in the comparison.

When it comes to terrorism, and genuine intelligence-driven threats, there is absolutely nothing funny about it at all. Anyone who believes otherwise is one sick SOB.

I hope you're not talking about me...

I don't find actual terrorism funny in the least, but people's fears and perceptions about terrorism (especially when they seem to be driven by bad movies and TV shows) are downright hilarious. 9/11 was not at all funny, but the ridiculous airport security measures enacted post-9/11 are pretty funny. Using liquid explosives to blow up a plane isn't funny, but the "liquid ban" is.

Same thing goes here, a REAL terrorist attack would not be funny, but these movie plot "threats" can be pretty humorous.

So what exactly are you people laughing at? The threat intel? The investigation that showed it false? Or something else?

I included inflammatory questions and nobody bit. Nobody has come out railing for attacks or some other reactionary response. On the other hand we have a whole host of dimwits who post non-funny one-liners poking fun at the whole thing... and it makes me wonder if these people have shoved the "boogeyman syndrome" so far up their ass that they don't take any potential threat serious no matter the situation.

I guess it's just more evidence to them that things are overblown and not real. Yeah... it's just an episode of 24. Then if/when something does go down, they can just blame everyone else, because that's what they're good at. Win-win for them :roll:

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Rainsford

The whole thing sounds like an episode of '24'...

LOL, that's funny.

Islamists target <insert plausible location here>!!!!

It's really not funny at all, and it's nothing like '24'

I wouldn't expect a drama queen like you to see the humor in the comparison.

When it comes to terrorism, and genuine intelligence-driven threats, there is absolutely nothing funny about it at all. Anyone who believes otherwise is one sick SOB.

I hope you're not talking about me...

I don't find actual terrorism funny in the least, but people's fears and perceptions about terrorism (especially when they seem to be driven by bad movies and TV shows) are downright hilarious. 9/11 was not at all funny, but the ridiculous airport security measures enacted post-9/11 are pretty funny. Using liquid explosives to blow up a plane isn't funny, but the "liquid ban" is.

Same thing goes here, a REAL terrorist attack would not be funny, but these movie plot "threats" can be pretty humorous.

So what exactly are you people laughing at? The threat intel? The investigation that showed it false? Or something else?

I included inflammatory questions and nobody bit. Nobody has come out railing for attacks or some other reactionary response. On the other hand we have a whole host of dimwits who post non-funny one-liners poking fun at the whole thing... and it makes me wonder if these people have shoved the "boogeyman syndrome" so far up their ass that they don't take any potential threat serious no matter the situation.

I guess it's just more evidence to them that things are overblown and not real. Yeah... it's just an episode of 24. Then if/when something does go down, they can just blame everyone else, because that's what they're good at. Win-win for them :roll:

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm laughing at the fact that virtually everything about terrorism gets blown WAY out of proportion by a hysterical public and a greedy media. I'm sure there is some small grain of truth to these kinds of "threats", and I'm equally sure that the way they are presented is expanded upon by people who don't know shit about terrorism except what they see on TV. That, to me, is pretty funny, because it shows how well terrorism works on a lot of people. The ridiculous things we believe about terrorists, if one really steps back and THINKS about it, are so stupid they are almost funny.

And please, stop bitching about things nobody has done yet. The way the public and the media treat terrorism is a completely separate issue from actual terrorism. Don't try and conflate the two to make your argument easier.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Rainsford

The whole thing sounds like an episode of '24'...

LOL, that's funny.

Islamists target <insert plausible location here>!!!!

It's really not funny at all, and it's nothing like '24'

I wouldn't expect a drama queen like you to see the humor in the comparison.

When it comes to terrorism, and genuine intelligence-driven threats, there is absolutely nothing funny about it at all. Anyone who believes otherwise is one sick SOB.

I hope you're not talking about me...

I don't find actual terrorism funny in the least, but people's fears and perceptions about terrorism (especially when they seem to be driven by bad movies and TV shows) are downright hilarious. 9/11 was not at all funny, but the ridiculous airport security measures enacted post-9/11 are pretty funny. Using liquid explosives to blow up a plane isn't funny, but the "liquid ban" is.

Same thing goes here, a REAL terrorist attack would not be funny, but these movie plot "threats" can be pretty humorous.

So what exactly are you people laughing at? The threat intel? The investigation that showed it false? Or something else?

I included inflammatory questions and nobody bit. Nobody has come out railing for attacks or some other reactionary response. On the other hand we have a whole host of dimwits who post non-funny one-liners poking fun at the whole thing... and it makes me wonder if these people have shoved the "boogeyman syndrome" so far up their ass that they don't take any potential threat serious no matter the situation.

I guess it's just more evidence to them that things are overblown and not real. Yeah... it's just an episode of 24. Then if/when something does go down, they can just blame everyone else, because that's what they're good at. Win-win for them :roll:

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm laughing at the fact that virtually everything about terrorism gets blown WAY out of proportion by a hysterical public and a greedy media. I'm sure there is some small grain of truth to these kinds of "threats", and I'm equally sure that the way they are presented is expanded upon by people who don't know shit about terrorism except what they see on TV. That, to me, is pretty funny, because it shows how well terrorism works on a lot of people. The ridiculous things we believe about terrorists, if one really steps back and THINKS about it, are so stupid they are almost funny.

And please, stop bitching about things nobody has done yet. The way the public and the media treat terrorism is a completely separate issue from actual terrorism. Don't try and conflate the two to make your argument easier.

I can find some humor in just about anything... and I suppose the fantastical mix of elements in this situation seems a little B-movie-ish. Kinda funny. But then again I don't see terrorism working well on people like you do. Nobody I know is running around in fear and panic. I don't think the idea or threat of terrorism is even a factor in most people's day to day lives. As as matter of fact, I believe most Americans couldn't give 2 shits about international terrorists. So I guess this difference in perspective accounts for the knee-slapping difference between us.

And I don't really understand your last paragraph. Remind me, what am I bitching about and what am I arguing?

Or, I'll help you: Any real argument I'm posing is -generally- that the mass media periodically suffers from credulous duplicity. Or, they are not quite as sharp as they tout themselves. Media outlets have published in the past, old stories as new stories because the story came off the wire and no one conducted a fact check in the news office.

Agence France-Presse (which used the Washington Time's article) and AP are very big on taking someone else's work and claiming it for their own, without further research. Of course, in this case, the Washington Times got it from an Arizona news source from some time ago. The media these days has succumbed to the worst sort of circular reporting, the kind us MI types routinely advise against.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Rainsford

The whole thing sounds like an episode of '24'...

LOL, that's funny.

Islamists target <insert plausible location here>!!!!

It's really not funny at all, and it's nothing like '24'

I wouldn't expect a drama queen like you to see the humor in the comparison.

When it comes to terrorism, and genuine intelligence-driven threats, there is absolutely nothing funny about it at all. Anyone who believes otherwise is one sick SOB.

I think it's a funny comparison, but then I'm a traitor to a drama queen such as yourself. You need to learn how to laugh at yourself once in a while, otherwise it's you who is the sick SOB.... and a pretenious one at that.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: cwjerome
...
So what exactly are you people laughing at? The threat intel? The investigation that showed it false? Or something else?

I included inflammatory questions and nobody bit. Nobody has come out railing for attacks or some other reactionary response. On the other hand we have a whole host of dimwits who post non-funny one-liners poking fun at the whole thing... and it makes me wonder if these people have shoved the "boogeyman syndrome" so far up their ass that they don't take any potential threat serious no matter the situation.

I guess it's just more evidence to them that things are overblown and not real. Yeah... it's just an episode of 24. Then if/when something does go down, they can just blame everyone else, because that's what they're good at. Win-win for them :roll:

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm laughing at the fact that virtually everything about terrorism gets blown WAY out of proportion by a hysterical public and a greedy media. I'm sure there is some small grain of truth to these kinds of "threats", and I'm equally sure that the way they are presented is expanded upon by people who don't know shit about terrorism except what they see on TV. That, to me, is pretty funny, because it shows how well terrorism works on a lot of people. The ridiculous things we believe about terrorists, if one really steps back and THINKS about it, are so stupid they are almost funny.

And please, stop bitching about things nobody has done yet. The way the public and the media treat terrorism is a completely separate issue from actual terrorism. Don't try and conflate the two to make your argument easier.

I can find some humor in just about anything... and I suppose the fantastical mix of elements in this situation seems a little B-movie-ish. Kinda funny. But then again I don't see terrorism working well on people like you do. Nobody I know is running around in fear and panic. I don't think the idea or threat of terrorism is even a factor in most people's day to day lives. As as matter of fact, I believe most Americans couldn't give 2 shits about international terrorists. So I guess this difference in perspective accounts for the knee-slapping difference between us.

Well, it's still probably the number one issue for a lot of voters even today. Perhaps blind panic isn't what we're seeing, but I do think we have an unhealthy preoccupation with it. The quickest way for a politician to advance his career is to talk about keeping people safe from terrorism. And almost every day seems to bring a new situation where people are willing to put up with a lot of bullshit in the name of fighting terrorism. The reaction may not be running around in fear, but it's still out of proportion to the threat.

And I don't really understand your last paragraph. Remind me, what am I bitching about and what am I arguing?
...

You were talking about the "whole host of dimwits" "poking fun at the whole thing", then you suggested that if something actually DID happen, "they would just blame everyone else, because that's what they're good at". Since that hasn't happened yet, complaining about it hardly seems necessary.