Funny how this keeps working out.
Four men have been charged with conspiring to attack John F. Kennedy International Airport by planting explosives to blow up jet fuel supply tanks and a pipeline, officials said.
Homeland Security sources said there is no current threat at the airport and that the attack as planned was "not technically feasible."
Previously:
FBI Disrupts Possible Terror Attack
Fighting Terror As Police Action
I’d be curious to know if they have killed or captured more terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq than they have arrested elsewhere?
Hehe
Frank: I don’t know. But I do know that they have created more terrorists in Iraq than they have arrested elsewhere.
But I do know that they have created more terrorists
That’s the CW, but there’s no evidence. The evidence for a dead terrorist is when he assumes room temperature.
Of course there’s evidence.
But you being FRANK, it will never register.
Wellstone:”Of course there’s evidence”.
Your being Wellstone, you don’t have to provide it. First, I have to ask. Second, you say, “Don’t you know to use Google?”.
Then after three days of clowning around, insults, “Mr. Pipeline” entries, and whatever, someone will pull a reference to something or other out of somewhere.
That will serve as ‘proof positive’. If I question it, or present countering evidence, that will “prove” my stubbornness / stupidity / insanity or all three.
Is that about right?
The evidence for a dead terrorist is when he assumes room temperature.
How does being dead “prove” that someone is a terrorist?
Well, Frank, you don’t have to listen to us, you can listen to those goddam pinkos in the CIA and other intelligence agencies or you can listen to the agency run by your heartthrob Condi
Not convinced, Frank? Well, the fact is that no matter how many bodies you can point to in Iraq, there is not one iota of evidence that Bush’s folly has produced a net reduction in the number of terrorists worldwide. Not one iota.
And the point of Oliver’s post is not how many terrorists there are in the world, but how law enforcement - the method pooh-poohed by Iraq war-mongers - actually works reasonably well to prevent terrorism.
Now I guess you’ll tell us that this success would never have been possible without the invasion of Iraq because….. because….. Help me out here, Frank.
Well, let’s review the grammar, shall we?
The evidence for a dead terrorist is when he [”he” is a pronoun, which “stands in the place of” the noun the dead terrorist, assumes room temperature.
He does not become a dead terrorist after he dies, nor does he cease to be one after he dies.
Did the CIA share intelligence with the FBI during this investigation?
Actually, Wilbur, I certainly support the efforts of law enforcement in this area. Aside from the occasional visit by the library police to my house for taking out books about the Middle East, and the Verizon subpoena for calling the local Persian Rug shop, I have been very pleased with the efforts of law enforcement in fighting terrorism.
So, I’m not sure who these people are that are “pooh - poohing” law enforcement, or why they are doing so, but I am not one of them. On the other hand, I strongly disagree with anyone who thinks that law enforcement is a sufficient weapon in the War on Terror.
The two sources you cite indicate an increase in terrorists and terrorist acts.
Neither story indicates that it is the war in Iraq that has created more terrorists in Iraq.
But I won’t quibble. I would ask you instead: How does catching terrorists before they commit acts of terror affect the number of terrorists world wide?
Can we even speculate that law enforcement serves to reduce the number of terrorists and / or terrorists’ acts more effectively than military methods?
Or is it more likely that both methods will be required for some time to come?
See, I told you it wouldn’t register.
The evidence for a dead terrorist is when he [”he” is a pronoun, which “stands in the place of” the noun the dead terrorist, assumes room temperature.
How does being dead “prove” that the deceased conducted terrorist activities?
fd10801,
I think you must have missed this the first time I posted it (a couple weeks ago). This article, in the Council on foreign Relations’ journal Foreign Affairs, written by an ex-CIA person, explains how Bush’s war in Iraq has been responsible for creating the opportunity for Al Qaeda to exist in Iraq, among other things.
Al Qaeda Strikes Back
Check it out.
“That’s the CW, but there’s no evidence. ”
Fuck you Frank. We’ve been over this before, the United States intelligence community unanimously agrees that Bush policies overseas has created a boon in recruitment for terrorist groups. Al Quada is getting stronger.
Or do you think your minimal intelligence overrides the experts in this field?
“So, I’m not sure who these people are that are “pooh - poohing” law enforcement,”
Kerry said in 2004 that stopping terrorism was a law enforcement issue. He was attacked repeatedly by Bush and the rest of the fucking morons on the right.
Not on topic, but FYI…
http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/06/02/steve-gilliard-1966-2007/
Wellstone: What “didn’t register” — with you — is that one article says that the war in Iraq is creating a different kind of terrorist world wide; the second article says there has been an increase in terrorist acts since the war in Iraq began.
Neither article, as I said, indicates that terrorists have increased in Iraq because of the war in Iraq.
I then added, “But I won’t quibble”.
Because that wasn’t the most important point of my comment.
Not one iota.
Every dead terrorist is one less terrorist.
He said a net reduction. And being brown and dead isn’t a qualifier for terrorism, either.
apikoros: Sorry to hear about your friend
RIP Steve Gilliard.
Well, this story is the perfect example of what puzzles me about the liberal response to terrorism.
Liberals tell us that using the military to hunt down and wipe out terrorists only results in more people wanting to join terror organizations; therefore the net number of terrorists increases.
Liberals point to the current fighting in Iraq as proof of their argument, and accuse President Bush of causing a net increase in the number of terrorists worldwide.
Then liberals tell us that the only way to stop terror is to arrest terrorists before they strike. It’s a law enforcement problem.
Shouldn’t liberals be applauding the good work of law enforcement? Shouldn’t liberals take law enforcement officials, the ones upon which they have bestowed moral authority in the fight against terrorism, at their word?
Shouldn’t we be thankful that law enforcement has apprehended, wihtout any casualties, these Kennedy airport plotters, the Fort Dix Six, the British group planning to blow up the airliners over the Atlantic, etc.?
Yet when we arrest terrorists, liberals use scare quotes around the word “terror” (like the accused really aren’t terrorists) and accuse Bush of some kind of evil conspiracy to create phony terror plots just so he can get credit for uncovering them.
Is the law enforcement approach working or not?
I’m confused.
Every dead terrorist is one less terrorist.
Every dead innocent Iraqi is two or three more terrorists/insurgents/contras/freedom fighters.
I know you wouldn’t object to a foreign army occupying the United States and dictating our political process, but I would, and I understand why Iraqis who five years ago didn’t care one way or another about the United States now want to kill our people.
Before you go off on me for “hating our troops,” I am an Army vet and you are not, which is why you don’t care if they are in harm’s way for no good reason and I do.
I’m confused.
I’ll say. Apparently the only “liberals” you have ever met are made of straw and completely fictional. These evil strawmen must be stopped, even if we have to give up our civil liberties in the process.
Instead of saying “Liberals think this,” and “Liberals think that,” please cite a source and quote it precisely.
I have never met a “liberal” who believed any of what you are telling me we believe, so when you say, “I’m confused,” you have made the understatement of the year.
Your confusion is compounded by your hatred of American values. A hitch in the military would clear your mind. Have you ever considered it?
“(like the accused really aren’t terrorists)”
They aren’t. They are merely accused until found guilty by a courty of law. Or don’t you believe in that anymore?
One further point…
If you treat everyone who is suspected of being a terrorist as if they are a terrorist, then you will create more terrorists because there are undoubtedly a lot of innocent people caught.
I then added, “But I won’t quibble”.
But you did, Frank, you did.
I’m confused.
Yes, Mike, you are. Quite confused.
It’s still not registering.
I think the problem is that what we’ve got here is a “failure to communicate”.
Common words like “threat” “terrorist” “attack” just do not mean the same in wingnuttia heads as in reality-based heads.
The wingnuttia are such anxiety-ridden, bedwetting cowards that as soon as they even think they might be under attack, they lose all capacity for reason, thought, and analysis and go into a near-catatonic state where all they know how to do is lash out in yelping fear.
That’s why these words and concepts just do not register, and that’s the secret of Bush and the GOP’s hold on them: They keep screaming these words in their ears and holding themselves out as the only “Deciders” that can save them, but only if they give them absolute power.
Pathetically, the wingnuts are only too happy to comply.
Before you go off on me for “hating our troops,” I am an Army vet and you are not
I know you don’t mean me. Who did you mean?
Just like in ‘Nam when every dead Vietnamese was counted as a dead VC. Why don’t some of you tough-talkers take to Iraq and do it yourself?
No, every dead Iraqi or Afghani means his relatives now hate our guts and will be eager to kill an American for it.
Who can say when these so-called terror plots are so lame. When there were real threats, when people were running around with their hair on fire and when Bush had a daily brief that bin Laden determined to strike in the US, no one in the Administration could get off his butt except to sneer that the CIA briefer had covered his.
This case was brought to the press by U.S. Attorney Roslynn R. Mauskopf, one of those Bush US attorneys who kept her job because she was a loyal Bushie.
Note the details released so far: No concrete actions, no explosives, no of the ‘conspirators had the technical know-how to do it, and lastly, had all those factors been reversed, it still would not have worked.
It’s interesting how, every time Bush is looking especially weak, some fake terror plot hits the headlines nationwide. I guess merely raising the color alerts lost its effectiveness.
Okay, we have two Mikes, NoSpam4Me Mike and Mikesnoise Mike. One is Liberal, one is Conservative. Can they get along in the suburbs?
It is kind of confusing.
Look at it this way, Wellstone: Right wingers are as afraid of getting blown up by a jihadi looking for a cheap ticket to Heaven, as left wingers are of getting subpoena’d for making a telephone call to Lebanon to their Uncle Toonoose.
The difference is that if what we fear happens, that’s a wee bit more painful than if what you fear happens to you.
In your opinion only. Some of us think its quite scary to lose the freedoms that make America great. If you’re willing to give those up because a pizza deliveryman wants to make an unexpected delivery, well I’ve got to wonder what you think our soldiers were fighting for the last 230 years.
Enlightened Liberal: Don’t go all self - righteous on me. You ever been in danger of losing your life? Do you have a family to care about? If not, then save the false bravado for the lunch room tomorrow.
It’s one thing to say, “I’d rather be free than dead”. It’s another to say, “Shit! That rocket almost killed me!”
When you have had a pistol held to your head, or a king cobra in your face, or your son is missing for a few hours, than you can talk all that Rambo shit.
There weren’t British psychos outside the House of Burgesses with explosives strapped around their middles, when Patrick Henry gave his “give me liberty” speech.
Give me liberty, or give me death.
Who can say when these so-called terror plots are so lame
So we’ll know how well the law enforcement approach works when the terrorist actually blow something up?
WTF?
First of all, let us no longer pretend that conservatives don’t want a law enforcement approach.
What they don’t want is a law enforcement only approach.
Second of all, I, for one, will concede, that a great deal of international cooperation is required — financial, CIA, Interpol, etc, regardless of whatever conservatives might think.
Third, we cannot abandon the military approach. If we pull out of Iraq too quickly to mark it as successful, then our world wide military effort, will be severely hampered.
There weren’t British psychos outside the House of Burgesses with explosives strapped around their middles, when Patrick Henry gave his “give me liberty” speech.
Yet his chances of ending up with a British noose around his neck or a British cannonball up his ass were considerably greater than any one of us being victim of a terrorist attack.
But then, if Frank had been alive in 1776, he’d have been a Tory. I mean, what’s all this liberal whining about taxation without representation, bills of attainder, enforced billetting of soldiers, etc.? How can we expect our King keep us safe from the nasty French and Indians without such reasonable measures?
What they don’t want is a law enforcement only approach.
Liberals don’t want that either. What they want is:
1. Increased law enforcement
2. Increased international cooperation
3. Respect for human rights, and the Bill of Rights
4. Judicious use of the military against terrorist targets
Bush has screwed up 2, 3 and 4 and not done as well as he could have on 1 because of all the resources and efforts devoted to the Iraq fiasco.
Again, not a shread of evidence that Bush, with all his warmongering and pissing-on of civil rights, has made us one whit safer from terrorism. Not one whit. Quite a bit of evidence for the opposite.
Again, not a shread of evidence that Bush,… has made us one whit safer from terrorism. Not one whit.
One thing I’m not clear about. Is a whit larger or smaller than an iota?
I’m asking, because I feel safer, a feeling I am sure will fade if we are burdened with a Democratic President
I’m asking, because I feel safer
The reasons for that are between you and your shrink, Frank. There’s no rational basis for that feeling.
A whit is about the same size as an iota. Both are considerably smaller than a smidge or a tad.
Right, Wilbur, and your feeling unsafe is supported by facts? What have you seen, heard or smelled or tasted or touched that makes you feel unsafe?
Quit fooling yourself (and trying to fool me). You just want to call yourself unsafer. If a Democratic President is inaugurated in January 2009, you will feel safer, no matter what he does.
Right, Wilbur, and your feeling unsafe is supported by facts?
Um, yes, like the ones referred to in the links I posted above.
What have you seen, heard or smelled or tasted or touched that makes you feel unsafe?
Uh, cnn.com?
Quit fooling yourself (and trying to fool me).
Ah, Mr. Civility strikes. Try to get your irrational anger under control, Frank.
You just want to call yourself unsafer. If a Democratic President is inaugurated in January 2009, you will feel safer, no matter what he does.
Unlike you, apparently, my feeling of security is not determined by the party affiliation of the persoon occupying the oval office. I will feel safer when I see credible evidence that terrorism is on the wane, regardless of who’s president.
You know nothing about terrorist activities except for what you are told by others, who filter what they tell you through their opinions. So you get your assessment of the real or imagined dangers of terrorists, before or since 9/11, from places like, uh, CNN.COM
I hardly think that suggesting that you are fooling yourself, and me, can be classified as uncivil*. We are debating an issue,are we not?
Unlike you, apparently, my feeling of security is not determined by the party affiliation of the person occupying the oval office.
You know what, Wilbur, it certainly is, whether you admit it or not. That’s why you watch a news station that consistently paints Pres. Bush and the Bush administration with a broad brush of incompetence and failure (which, of course,they are entitled to do), and you then relay it to me as “rational”.
* Anymore than one would classify my belief as worthy of discussion only with a psychiatrist. I mean, if one were to do that.
Wilbur: I do not for one minute believe that the conservatives of today resemble the Tories of 1775.
Edmund Burke resolved all that in his Reflections on the French Revolution.
Remember that there is hardly one of you here who has seen military service, fired a gun, been under rocket fire, lived in real fear of real terrorists, and had no option to go anywhere but to your job.
I don’t fear death, but I have children, and I fear for them. You talk of bravery. Wilbur quotes Patrick Henry like an idiotic parrot.
Did you think his speech was in opposition to the Patriot Act of the day?
Hardly.
On March 23, in Virginia, the largest colony in America,
Moron: “I’m asking, because I feel safer, a feeling I am sure will fade if we are burdened with a Democratic President”
Wilbur: “The reasons for that are between you and your shrink, Frank. There’s no rational basis for that feeling.”
Moron: “Right, Wilbur, and your feeling unsafe is supported by facts?”
YES!
American intelligence agencies have said the Bush policies have made America less safe, not more safe, but less safe.
How many times do we have to repeat this till you get it? Or are you that blinded by ideology?
Wilbur: “Unlike you, apparently, my feeling of security is not determined by the party affiliation of the person occupying the oval office.”
Moron: “You know what, Wilbur, it certainly is, whether you admit it or not. That’s why you watch a news station that consistently paints Pres. Bush and the Bush administration with a broad brush of incompetence and failure (which, of course,they are entitled to do), and you then relay it to me as ‘rational’.”
Or, and here’s a radical thought, President Bush is incompetent and a failure and these news organizations are reporting the facts.
Lord, do I really have to respond to this? I suppose I must.
1. Edmund Burke hated the French Revolution but he was a strong advocate for civil rights and limitations of executive power that Patrick Henry was willing to die for. It’s silly to say that either Burke or Henry was “liberal” or “conservative” in today’s terms, but when it comes to the excesses of Bush’s imperial presidency, the views of liberals - and conscientious conservatives - sound more to me like something Burke or Henry would espouse than do the views of the 28-percenters.
2. Henry’s speech was not in response to the Patriot Act of his day. It was in response to the massing of British forces in support of a king who was denying Henry and his fellow colonists their civil rights. What point you think you’re making eludes me completely, unless you’re operating under the delusion that we pantywaist liberals would never call for an armed response to any provocation.
3. It may interest you to know, Frank, that I am currently living in a country where terrorist attacks occur several times a year on average. One occured (nonfatal, thank God) a few blocks from where I live just a couple of months ago. Many countries live with a far greater threat of terrorism than the US, and somehow manage to face up to it without throwing their civil rights in the toilet or launching precipitous invasions of random countries. We need to take the threat of terrorism seriously, but getting worked up into a hysterical frenzy about it, like you and the rest of the 28 percenters, is nothing but counterproductive.
4. Don’t like cnn.com? Well what I see on foxnews.com makes me scared too, how about that? See also the links above. Perhaps Condi’s State department has it in for Bush too. Yay Condi.
Okay, somebody please tell me to stop beating my head against the wall of frozen manure.
Wilbur: I’ll tell you: Our civil rights are in no greater danger than they were in Roosevelt’s time or Lincoln’s time.
So that’s that.
If that bothers you, think about the Civil War and World War II. This War is no less crucial to our survival.
Henry’s speech was not in response to the Patriot Act of his day.
That’s what I said. He was exhorting his Legislature to support a war, not complaining that the FBI was looking at his telephone records.
It’s silly to say that either Burke or Henry was “liberal” or “conservative” in today’s terms
But you were perfectly willing to call me a Tory.
I’m sorry if it’s frustrating to you to discover that your beliefs don’t go uncontested. What often helps me is to tell myself, “Opinions are not facts”. Try it some time. You’ll feel better.
And, please, in the future, don’t even raise the subject of civility. That ship, for you, has sailed. Now you can’t even comment without being vile.
Congratulations, you have joined the scum of LKTS — frameone, CSS, mambochicken and others. Yay, Wilbur!
Well, Frank I have been in danger and I do have a family to worry about. So you can just STFU and talk over your irrational fear of terra’ with your shrink. I guess when you took your military oath and agreed to protect the Constitution it was not so much, right? You would think someone with your background would be more concerned about government intrusion considering how authoritarian governments feel about, well you know.
Enlightened Liberal: This conversation — if that’s what it is — is stupid. Pretending that your civil liberties are seriously endangered when the gummint monitors the phone records relating to overseas phone calls — not the calls, but the records, is silly.
It’s like the protesting from the librarians about library records, when none were subpoena’d.
I’m prepared for the Reverend Niemoller bit: The government reserves these powers to itself in wartime, precisely to overcome these conflicts when the powers are needed.
But that makes no sense to you, right? This isn’t political, right? Well, let’s see who’s complaining if and when there is a Democratic President in the White House in the White House, and these powers still exist.
You would think someone with your background would be more concerned about government intrusion considering how authoritarian governments feel about, well you know
No, I don’t know. What exactly is “my background”? Could you explain, please?
I will complain if/when these powers exist under a Democratic administration. Unlike yourself, my principles extend regardless of who is in office.
I do agree with you on one thing: this conversation is stupid. Pretty much every conversation with you, for you, about you is stupid. So I’m going to exit this one and leave you alone with the voices in your head.
You’re going to stand up to the people who threaten our freedoms?
You can’t even answer two simple questions:
What is “my background” you were talking about?
What is the “you know” that I should be concerned about?
Real brave.
I’m sure I’ll be standing up for my rights alone, if I have to depend on the likes of you.
See, I told you. It does not register.
I’ll add this, sadly: No matter what proof, what support, what research, what backup we bring, it will NEVER register. Reason has been turned off for what wingnuts consider the “duration” of the war on terra’. All thinking and policy is done by their “Leader”, their “Commander in Chief”.
I’ve accepted, after hundreds of threads and conversations, THIS is what we have to deal with when we talk to wingnuts. The Bushies understood this simple fact a long time ago, and played them like a fiddle.
Conservative activists understood this when they invested hundreds of millions in trapping Bill Clinton first in a sexual transgression, and then in a perjury trap.
They knew they needed to strip him of all legitiamte claim to “Supreme COmmander in Chief” title. And they found a way to do it.
Here’s another fact wingnuts do not grasp, and Frank shows it by his talk of Patrick Henry:
In our system of government, the President is the Commander in Chief. But our President is, first and foremeost, a CIVILIAN.
Why, Frank the wingnut, WHY did our forefathers hand over Supreme Command of all our armed forces to a CIVILIAN?
Wellstone: I must confess that in my attempt to respond to about six different people at the same time I am forced to the last person who addresses me. If that appears confusing to you, I am sorry, but you’re not in that position.
Please tell me what it is you think is not registering — before three other people descend upon me — and I will do my best to reply.
This is, after all, a blog thread, and I am by no means in charge.
I’ll add this, sadly: No matter what proof, what support, what research, what backup we bring, it will NEVER register
WHAT will never register?
What?
fd10801 | Jun 4, 2007 1:35:01 PM
“I’ll add this, sadly: No matter what proof, what support, what research, what backup we bring, it will NEVER register. WHAT will never register? What?”
LoL!
“Congratulations, you have joined the scum of LKTS — frameone, CSS, mambochicken and others. Yay, Wilbur!”
It’s amazing how so many different people get added to our group.
It’s amazing that these people are added their by you.
It is almost like you want more people to attack you so you act like an ass until they do just to justify your persecution complex.
You are in need of serious help.
It’s amazing that these people are added there by you.
Who else would add them, you numskull?
CSS, I guess you’re known by the company you keep. On your side, frame, mambo, S, Wilbur and every other liberal poster, on the other side, Frank and…… no just Frank. Hmmmm.
EL: You and…
Me: “It’s amazing that these people are added there by you.”
You: “Who else would add them, you numskull?”
Yes. You see, you make it sound like were some gang that’s here to make you life miserable. If that was true, we would be the ones inviting people into our group, organizing attack through e-mail, ordering in Pizza every Thursday night to celebrate our victories while playing board games.
… I’ve said too much.
In reality, you just piss people off till they snap and yell at you.
For me, it didn’t take much for I have no patience with morons and like insulting people. I admit that and own up to my part in our animosity.
You, you still think you are the victim.
“you make it sound like were some gang that’s here to make you life miserable”
Where did you get that, from the Esperanto translation?
What kind of bullshit is that?
It wouldn’t matter if I snuck in their homes and lit them on fire.
I’m not talking about them. I’m talking about you.
I didn’t even suggest that you did what you did together. It just occurred to me that the only thing you all have in common is feigned intelligence.
Perhaps that is something for you to think about, but not me.
Me: “you make it sound like were some gang that’s here to make you life miserable”
You: Where did you get that, from the Esperanto translation?”
I don’t know, the first hint was your constant complaints, especially the ones about being ganged up on.
This was also a big sign: “Congratulations, you have joined the scum of LKTS — frameone, CSS, mambochicken and others. Yay, Wilbur!”
Now, I don’t know what LKTS means, but I’m sure you can tell me.
“I’m not talking about them. I’m talking about you.”
Really? Cause you mentioned me as part of a group, one that now has Wilbur in it.
“I didn’t even suggest that you did what you did together. It just occurred to me that the only thing you all have in common is feigned intelligence.”
You. Your the thing that’s in common. You act like an asshole till people yell at you then you act surprised.
“Perhaps that is something for you to think about, but not me.”
God forbid you should ever think. You might hurt yourself. Worse yet, you might learn something.
I don’t know what LKTS means it’s the initials of a secret, yet powerful organization lead by a nondescript employee of a news organization funded by a mysterious eastern European billionaire.
You’ll find another clue under the old oak tree tomorrow night.
Geez, CSS ixnay on teh pizzaeh already!
Why can’t we all just get along?
– Rodney King
Wow, I finally made it? I’m really a member? Gawrsh! I am honored, gentlemen, I am humbled.
Ahem… Now that I am a fully fledged member of the Get Frank Group I would like to propose a motion that the group be permanently disbanded.
I think each of us should take a pledge never again to be suckered into a conversation with Frank. Never again to allow a thread to become about Frank and his feelings of persecution, nor ever again let a thread to be hijacked by doomed attempts to make Frank see reason.
I admit to being one of the worst offenders in this regard in the past, but I have seen, brothers, the error of my ways.
One of two things is true, either Frank is constitutionally impervious to reason, or he is deliberately aiming to disrupt this site. In the first eventuality we should stop tormenting him. In the second, we should stop feeding his nefarious appetities.
In either case, my friends, we must stop rising to the troll bait. We must stop, as a wise man has said, impacting our crania against the rampart of immoveable excrement.
We all have better things that we could be doing. Follow me, comrades, and save yourselves for those nobler struggles!
So let it be written, so let it be done…
But … but … my Get Frank Group membership was discounted!!
I’m in, Wilbur!
Sorry, Squirrel, Wilbur has shut down the club.
You never would have got in anyway. One of the requirements for membership is frontal lobes.