Latest Terrorist attempt
A man suspected of planning to blow up a Delta Air Lines flight in Detroit could face charges as soon as Saturday, according to an official familiar with the case.
There was nothing out of the ordinary until the flight was on final approach to Detroit, said Federal Aviation Administration spokeswoman Elizabeth Isham Cory.
That is when the pilot declared an emergency and landed without incident shortly thereafter, Cory said in an e-mail message. The plane landed at 11:51 a.m.
One U.S. intelligence official said the explosive device was a mix of powder and liquid. It failed when the passenger tried to detonate it.
The counterterror official said the passenger was being questioned this evening.
The passenger created a disturbance by lighting what was reported to be firecrackers -- or perhaps a "powdery substance" -- onboard the flight, injuring himself and several other passengers, according to Delta Airlines
FBI spokeswoman Sandra Berchtold confirmed today that agents are at Metro.
The man was apparently already on the government's no-fly list of suspected terrorists, ABC News said a senior intelligence official told them.
President Barack Obama was notified of the incident and discussed it with security officials, the White House said. It said he is monitoring the situation and receiving regular updates from his vacation spot in Hawaii.
I hope He burned his stipid self UP !!!
Oh and the FuckSticks that let him on the plane and screened him(NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ) should get A STIFF sentance if not Life !
I originally heard he was British, but turns out he only studied here. Phew - we did seem to be breeding them lately. In fact we refused him a visa to come back into the country in May.
He's Nigerian born and get this - his Dad was a Govt Minister who went on to become head of the Bank of Nigeria. I think I have an email from him somewhere...
He boarded the plane in Amsterdam, so it's their security staff that will be getting the rocket. Perhaps America should send some soldiers over there to help them ;)
Ah, just seen. According to the BBC
US sources confirm a file was opened, but say the information did not warrant placing the accused on a "no-fly" list.
Back to you I'm afraid.
I just posted over in the Cellar's Travel board about some of the new security measures:
http://www.cellar.org/showthread.php?p=620801#post620801
Expect more changes and further restrictions as things progress. :(
I read a report that stated the would-be terrorist started his journey in Nigeria, so security at the Lagos airport also failed. Is there any security in Nigeria, anyway? The airports must be jammed with Nigerians attempting to leave with all their checks from the USA. :right:
I don't understand why everyone else has to suffer. Make the terrorists suffer.
Only change I would make is to put a uniformed (and armed) air marshal on every flight. Already, I find the security to be overbearing to the point that I don't fly commercial unless it is really necessary. I'm driving to more places that I would have flown to and rented a car before the advent of airline security.
I'm tired of prescreening my luggage. I'm teed off that I can't bring a snack or drink on board with me. I'm sick of ditching my lighter. I don't like moving all metal items to checked baggage prior to the flight. Taking off my shoes is just silly. The delays are onerous. Why in the world should I wait in a two hour line just to get on a plane?
Punish the bad guys without making life miserable for everyone.
When you do this, the terrorists win!
However, they were all over it when Ivana Trump had a hissy fit:
http://entertainment.msn.com/news/article.aspx?news=449003>1=28103
Sure, profiling can include old rich tired gold-diggers,
and foreigners who come bearing explosives. We're so afraid someone will cry that they've been profiled, that we're only looking for crazy white bitches now. :lol:
NAPOLITANO: Right now, that is part of the criminal justice investigation that is ongoing, and I think it would be inappropriate to speculate as to whether or not he has such ties.
What we are focused on is making sure that the air environment remains safe, that people are confident when they travel.
And one thing I’d like to point out is that the system worked. Everybody played an important role here. The passengers and crew of the flight took appropriate action.
Link
Yeh it worked real well. Please tell me she really isn't this stupid.
CROWLEY: I’m sorry, but if he was not improperly screened or properly screened, and yet you want Americans to feel safe on the planes, and so if it was properly screened and he got on anyway with that, it doesn’t feel that safe.
NAPOLITANO: Well, you know, it should. This was one individual literally of thousands that fly and thousands of flights every year. And he was stopped before any damage could be done.
By fellow passengers, not anything that our system did.
As a child, I used to enjoy flying. That was a different time, of course, with meals on the flight, and real silverware, and being able to go into the cockpit to see all the cool stuff up there.
I flew to Florida this year, but only because all of my girlfriends were going, and one of them booked the tickets (and, apparently, there's no Magic Mickey Bus from the train station in Orlando).
In addition to the inconvenience of the security screening, and having to throw away a perfectly good lighter, you're packed in like cattle, and they don't feed you. At least there were plenty of overpriced concessions on the far side of security where you were able to buy snacks and beverages for the flight.
I want the TSA to profile the heck out of people ... by behavior as well as demographics.
I thought this fellow was actually stopped by a malfunctioning fuse?
That was the flight Banana Lady was on a day or two earlier.
I want the TSA to profile the heck out of people ... by behavior as well as demographics.
I agree. Sadly, it's come to that. When we're so afraid someone might get their feelings hurt, at the expense of a boatload, um, planeload of innocent people...well, eff that.
This is a far cry from my usual liberal opinions, but desperate times and all. I'll tell you what, when I'm running around Nigeria with explosives strapped to me I'll be unsurprised and less than indignant when they look a little more closely into my background.
I always think of that scene in Airport, where the customs guy is suspicious about D.O. Guerrero's behavior. That's the kind of profiling that should be happening.
Oh wow, another for my netflix queue! Thanks for the reminder.
The only danger in profiling is that the bad guys can use it against you. The drug smugglers have certainly learned. The cheap dumb ones get caught with drug mules that pretty much look like drug mules.
In 2003; statistics confirmed that over 50% of foreign females in UK jails were drug mules from Jamaica.[3]. Nigerian women also make a large contribution to the remaining figure.
In all, around 18% of the UK's female jail population are foreigners, 60% of which are serving sentences for drug related offences—most of them drug mules.[4]
All of these people caught and we're still swimming in drugs. If you want to move millions of dollars of drugs or guns up the East coast, do you put it in the trunk of a red sports car full of gangbangers or do you put it in station wagon with Ozzie and Harriet and their kids? You probably run the red car a few miles ahead of Ozzie and Harriet as the cop magnet.
I'm not saying that all profiling is counter-productive, just that it's not perfect and too much reliance on it can create blind spots.
I do not know how anyone could strap a bomb to my person without my knowledge.
Airport is one of my favorite books and favorite movies.
It is often in power rotation on Encore movie channel, so sometimes I'll see it on the channel guide and just flip it on to see where it is, just to catch some of my favorite parts (like Mrs. Quonset explaining how she gets onto planes or the dad in the development off the end of the runway freaking out while he's saying grace). I grew up in Chicago and flew out of O'Hare more times than I can remember, so there's a lot of nostalgia in the movie for me.
I thought it was a watch instantly on netflix, but I can't find it now.
Link
Yeh it worked real well. Please tell me she really isn't this stupid.
By fellow passengers, not anything that our system did.
She was our governor. Yes, she really is that fucking stupid.
I hope I don't sound too idealistic but Roosevelt had a point when he said "all we have to fear is fear itself." The terrorists win whether they blow up a plane or just disrupt things which is what they are doing now. And their return on investment is pretty good when something like this happens, not much happens but they make the powerful very afraid, so in their eyes they have succeeded.
News reports say this guy had been in contact with a well known fanatical cleric in Yemen I think and possibly the same one that the nutjob in San Antonio at the army base was in contact with prior to shooting up thing there. Blowing up Yemen is a bit to simplistic but it seems like some kind of joint international pressure is needed.
Our powerful aren't afraid! They fly on private jets.
Our powerful aren't afraid! They fly on private jets.
Or on military jets when Congress wants to cavort in Scotland.
what no one is saying, and what I really want to know is . . .
did the guy actually blow his dick off?
I think he just burned it really well. Well done.
"Well done" as in, no pink left in the middle?
Ok this is just getting stupid. What kind of idiot is in charge of TSA?
WASHINGTON – Some airlines were telling passengers on Saturday that new government security regulations prohibit them from leaving their seats beginning an hour before landing
The regulations are a response to a suspected terrorism incident on Christmas Day.
Air Canada said in a statement that new rules imposed by the Transportation Security Administration limit on-board activities by passengers and crew in U.S. airspace. The airline said that during the final hour of flight passengers must remain seated. They won't be allowed access to carryon baggage or to have any items on their laps.
Flight attendants on some domestic flights are informing passengers of similar rules. Passengers on a flight from New York to Tampa Saturday morning were also told they must remain in their seats and couldn't have items in their laps, including laptops and pillows.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_airline_attack_regulationsUh wrong thread - try this one . . .
Link"Ok this is just getting stupid. What kind of idiot is in charge of TSA?"
I fear the same idiots that got the TSA where they are today! For instance, I've seen several reports that TSA in some airports are not allowing any unmarked bottles of liquid in 3 oz or less size through security in carry on luggage, only commercial name brand bottles. So the TSA previously approved clear bottles sold by travel companies like Magellan and others or the ones you get at sporting goods stores like REI are now obsolete. If the bottle says Pantene Shampoo it is ok because a terrorist would never figure out that they could buy those and replace the contents with chemicals that could be used to make a bomb. This is the same TSA that made sure that anyone buying a one way ticket got extra rigorous searches because anyone with any sense would realize that would be terrorists only need a one way ticket and can save a few bucks on the ticket and not buy a leg they won't ever use. :eyebrow:
I don't understand why everyone else has to suffer. Make the terrorists suffer.
I'm glad you know how to identify them. Sell the secret to governments worldwide and you can make a fortune.
Already, I find the security to be overbearing to the point that I don't fly commercial unless it is really necessary. I'm driving to more places that I would have flown to and rented a car before the advent of airline security.
I'm tired of prescreening my luggage. I'm teed off that I can't bring a snack or drink on board with me. I'm sick of ditching my lighter. I don't like moving all metal items to checked baggage prior to the flight. Taking off my shoes is just silly. The delays are onerous. Why in the world should I wait in a two hour line just to get on a plane? Punish the bad guys without making life miserable for everyone.
Yay! You also know how to identify the bad guys! Sell the secret to governments worldwide and you can make a fortune.
In addition to the inconvenience of the security screening [snip] I want the TSA to profile the heck out of people ... by behavior as well as demographics.
Funny, profiling by demographics is usually regarded as fascist. I know it fuelled unrest during the Troubles in Northern Ireland.
When we're so afraid someone might get their feelings hurt, at the expense of a boatload, um, planeload of innocent people...well, eff that.
You can be all for it, but it doesn't work. Targetting anyone coming into England with an Irish passport/ accent/ name only raised tensions. My friend's husband - a British Citizen of Pakistani parents - was held for hours at US Customs and questioned on everythign from his income to his bank statements. Both are decent Westernised Muslims (she has US nationality) but both were very shaken by the ordeal. I'm not saying check no-one. I'm just saying over-zealous targeting marginalises and potentially crimalises people. And is a far cry from American standards as I have learned them here.
I think the new rules are just stupid and they wouldn't have stopped this most recent nutter. He didn't get up, but remained seated, and the bomb was in his undies, not a copy of Reader's Digest. Just how unpleasant are they going to make flying, anyhow? You can't use the restroom and you can't even read a book. I'm glad that I no longer have the need to fly anywhere. I'd rather spend 8 hours in a car than 15 minutes on an airplane with these new and ridiculous rules. :eyebrow:
There's a bunch of Arabs or Iranians or whatever down at registration, talking furtively. They're probably not terrorists. But how do I know?
I just have to walk by and hope for no bombs. *shrugs* I never used to feel this way about anyone.
Being shaken by an ordeal is a small price to pay, for the safety of those who are just minding their own business in their own homes and places of work.
Like I said, I'll expect the same when I start running around Nigeria or Iraq.
So, deal with it, or don't fly. These are the times we live in. There is a choice, just not that one you all would like.
Being shaken by an ordeal is a small price to pay, for the safety of those who are just minding their own business in their own homes and places of work.
Sounds similar to what happened to anyone Oriental-looking after Pearl Harbor was bombed.
Oh well. So be it.
You know it's not the same, but you're on that horse of righteousness and represent all that is good. Ride on, cowboy, ride on.
Oh well. So be it.
You know it's not the same,
How exactly is what you posted so different? Please enlighten us.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has revised her talking points.‬‪
Yesterday, Napolitano downplayed the ability of Umar Farouk Abdulmuttalab’s ability to get on the Northwest Airlines flight with explosives – and despite his father’s warnings to the US Embassy in Nigeria about his son’s extremist religious views – focusing instead on accentuating the positive.
“Once the incident occurred, the system worked,” she told me on This Week on Sunday. “The passengers reacted correctly, the crew reacted correctly, within an hour to 90 minutes, all 128 flights in the air had been notified. And those flights already had taken mitigation measures on the off-chance that there was somebody else also flying with some sort of destructive intent.”‬‪
This morning she took to the airwaves with a slightly different message.‬‪
“Our system did not work in this instance,” Napolitano said on the TODAY show this morning. “No one is happy or satisfied with that. An extensive review is under way."
Ah.
Link
Thanks for telling the rest of us what we already knew. . . Next!
A few days later the President finally speaks...
"The American people should be assured that we are doing everything in our power to keep you and your family safe and secure during this busy holiday season," Obama told reporters.
"A full investigation has been launched into this attempted act of terrorism, and we will not rest until we find all who were involved and hold them accountable," he said.
A wing of al Qaeda claimed responsibility for the failed Christmas Day attack.
Abdulmutallab has told U.S. investigators that the group's operatives in Yemen supplied him with an explosive device and trained him on how to detonate it, officials said.
Link
Does anyone else feel that we just got lucky on this one?
Napolitano is a dumb ass. She got caught up in playing the shift blame game. No surprise.
Whatever - I'm serious. Is there anything we can really do about this. Its one thing to address measures on flights within the US, but with flights coming in from other countries, can we trust their security measures? Apparently not.
Sounds similar to what happened to anyone Oriental-looking after Pearl Harbor was bombed.
You know, I don't think I've ever heard how many spies and saboteurs they netted with that move?
One of the problems with profiling is that it has a tendency to net people who 'look suspicious'. That means we begin to count all arabs as looking suspicious, and in particular any arab who presents a traditional arabic appearance (dress, beard etc). That makes it very easy for those who actually do mean harm to circumvent the system by doing their best to look unsuspicious: by wearing western clothes, by shaving their beard etc. Consequently, the ones most likely to be pulled in by profiling are the ones least likely to be up to no good.
If you were intent on bombing a plane; would you turn up to the airport wearing robes and a long beard? Or would you be clean-shaven and wearing a suit? Would you be gathered together in clumps speaking in your own language, or would you be boarding separately having learned and adopted an American accent?
Profiling is a very wide net which catches far too many people and notoriously allows through the very people you want to stop. In doing so you antagonise and potentially criminalise those whose support you most need.
It's particularly fraught when it comes to something like Islamic identities; given that ethnicity amongst the faithful is very wide indeed. So, do you stop anyone with black skin in case they come from an islamic part of Africa? Do you stop anyone with a moslem sounding name? Perhaps Obama, or Mohammed? How many of your own citizens re you going to hang a cloud of suspicion over? How many generations of settled American citizenry have now been deemed suspect because of actions taken by foreign radicals?
It doesn't keep you safe. Actual intelligence keeps you safe, or rather it should do, if the warnings are listened to and acted upon. Which in this case they clearly werent.
Whatever - I'm serious. Is there anything we can really do about this. Its one thing to address measures on flights within the US, but with flights coming in from other countries, can we trust their security measures? Apparently not.
Would it be possible for us to control the security at the origin point of any flight that will enter the US? With GOVERNMENT employees, not privatized-McDonald's-reject-minimum-wage rent-a-cops?
I don't see why we can't limit the number of people who enter the US - there's really not a
need for a good percentage of these people to come into my country, IMHO.
I really don't see how retreating into splendid isolation would help America. How would you reduce the numbers? On what criteria? What would that do to your tourist industry? How many jobs would be lost if fewer people travelled to visit America? The people who don't 'need' to be there are people who are there to visit and spend money.
I shouldn't be, but I'm amazed that the Democrat and Republican (sympathizers) have now flipped positions from the W administration. Now the Dems are spouting xenophobic nonsense and the Reps are defending freedom of movement. It is to laugh.
That sounds harsh as I read it but it is what I'm hearing.
It's a global economy. You can't shut that down, not without committing economic suicide.
The only 'system' that works is having the attacker get swarmed by his fellow passengers in 0.001 seconds. Everything else is window dressing. Inconvenient, racist and ineffective window dressing.
How exactly is what you posted so different? Please enlighten us.
I don't think the collective "us" you speak of needs enlightened. Frankly, most of these folks think for themselves. As far as enlightening you, you don't listen to anyone anyway. So, bite me.
For everyone else: I know my thinking isn't right. It goes against everything I've ever felt about humans and diversity...
I struggle with this feeling. Working where I do, MANY walks of life seem suspect. Where do you think they'll target next? Large schools? Libraries? Museums? When a kid (which this last guy was pretty much) believes that blowing up a plane, and dying for a religious idea, is honorable, how are any of us to not be at least a little apprehensive when you pass a group of folks and they're speaking in tongues ;) and looking around furtively? When explosives are carried around in their undies...how can we know?
Not proud of this feeling. Perhaps it'll pass, but the terrorists score small victories every day in people like me, in airport security issues, in distrust, in not wanting to travel overseas...
It is up to me to overcome the distrust.
I agree with Dana that intelligence, not fear, is what should keep us safe. The last administration was too busy having coffee with the Bin Ladens. Maybe we'll get better.
I really don't see how retreating into splendid isolation would help America. How would you reduce the numbers? On what criteria? What would that do to your tourist industry? How many jobs would be lost if fewer people travelled to visit America? The people who don't 'need' to be there are people who are there to visit and spend money.
Those are good questions. I was thinking more "grand scheme of things" rather than specifics, but...
How would you reduce the numbers? Just not let as many people in. Stop them at the source.
On what criteria? That's the difficult one. "Need" to me isn't the same as "need" to someone else.
What would that do to your tourist industry? How many jobs would be lost if fewer people travelled to visit America? The people who don't 'need' to be there are people who are there to visit and spend money. That's the eternal question: where is the balance between spending (or losing) money and security? There's no pleasing everyone on this point. Nobody wants to be inconvenienced when trying to fly. Nobody wants to be (or their loved ones to be) blown up. Nobody wants the terrorists to win, whatever that means. Given the ultimate option of losing one's job or being blown up, I think most Americans would choose to lose their job.
I'm shouldn't be, but I'm amazed that the Democrat and Republican (sympathizers) have now flipped positions from the W administration. Now the Dems are spouting xenophobic nonsense and the Reps are defending freedom of movement. It is to laugh.
That sounds harsh as I read it but it is what I'm hearing.
I can only speak for myself, but on 911, I said we should close the borders for awhile. And not because my mother and sister were killed in the WTC.
... When explosives are carried around in their undies...how can we know?
....
For purposes of air travel, I say we strip search everyone. I volunteer to search women, ages 21 to 50, C cup or greater.:ggw: People should have to really want to fly. :D
Okee dokee, but keep in mind, with your parameters you're gonna get some stinky skanky ho-bags coming through your line. You might want to be just a bit more selective, such as: has bathed in the last week, free of crabs, with no open sores. A-cup, B-cup, C-cup, Double D's...no one body type is immune to skankism.
I don't think the collective "us" you speak of needs (to be) enlightened.
Frankly, most of these folks think for themselves. As far as enlightening you, you don't listen to anyone anyway. So, bite me.
gotcha :right:
Assuming terrorists are clever and have an understanding of our security systems, there will always be a risk that security measures can be bypassed. Even though it may have a small effect, I don't know how banning everything that could potentially be an explosive will solve the problem since a terrorist will just quickly adapt and use a new method. There is the obvious question of where we want our security versus airplane freedom equilibrium but it seems that the act of addressing that issue will naturally make it worthless since publicly stating the line where security will not cross does not seem intelligent from a "lets stop terrorist attacks" standpoint.
For racial discrimination, especially with Muslims, I would not be surprised if that actually backfired and created more problems than it solves. There have been numerous amounts of Somalis that have been tailed by the CIA here in Minneapolis for terrorist reasons and I strongly believe that we will send more off the edge by treating entire ethnic/religious groups as second class citizens. Also, keep in mind that the isolation of Muslims in the United States is a goal of Al Qaeda. Like airport security, this issue is a tight rope act and it seems most officials are plastered beyond belief.
gotcha :right:
Ha, now you're my editor?
My sentence stands as written, "to be" is extraneous. Quote me all you want, but don't impose your idea of correct grammar on me. I shouldn't be surprised, the way you cut and pasted my individual words before, taking me out of context...OMG, yeah. That is your MO.
(chuckle) An editor, with the crap blogs you post and call "news." That's rich!
Good piece here on the travel security theater:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2009/12/the_latest_on_flight_253
That was a very good snapshot.
As Dana stated intel is the key. But really, to take it one step further, counter-intellegence is paramount in that approach. We have to infiltrate the organizations and allow the agencies who have the expertise a free hand to exploit their weaknesses from the inside. We have a huge problem will the lack of any form of intel in many parts of this world. It takes many years (10 - 20) to form the base of a strong counter intel program in the areas of concern. And with the recent abuses that were exposed in the last 8 years many of those people are now gun shy as to what and what they should or should not do. There is much repair that needs to done for this process to move forward effectively. It will take years of investment and selective development of resources to gain the intel insight or position the right people to do the job effectively.
On the other hand, with the openess of our society, the bad guys have had many years to develop their base.
Ha, now you're my editor? My sentence stands as written, "to be" is extraneous.
Really? I didn't know it was extraneous. I stand corrected.
Ha! Of course you do. Someone write that down. Even dripping with sarcasm, it's a first for classhole.
No sarcasm implied nor intended. I always thought it was necessary to include the "to be".
"The car needs to be cleaned"
vs.
"The car needs cleaned."
still doesn't sound right to me.
The car needs cleaned does sound a bit off, but it's still correct. Which is more nearly correct? I don't know. I tend to leave "to be" out of sentences when I don't think the extra words are needed. I do this so I have room for more filler in the way of run-on sentences, dangling participles, and extreme hyberbole.
Also, the act of "being cleaned" is a physical, tangible thing. The process of being enlightened is not a tangible thing. Intangibles have other rules sometimes, such as subjunctive mood (saying "I wish I were somewhere else" as opposed to saying "I wish I was somewhere else." If, and wish, call you to use were, not was. I don't know if this is relevant, but in my ear, in that sentence, "to be" was extraneous.
I won't even start on whether or not I should have used "need" instead of "needs" since "us" was a collective. I have no idea.
I thought it was a tense issue. ( double meaning intended)
Doesn't the "to be" need (to be) in that sentence so that the tense is correct?
I hate grammar. Thats why I try to stick to numbers.
I don't think so, but I don't really know. It seems to me that "to be" became part of our vernacular, and we're used to hearing it that way, but the sentence is fine without it. I've been wrong before, though. (shhhhh)
For Christmas, we gave my son a son a shirt that said something like "The English Language - cobbled together by three blind men with a German dictionary". :D
For Christmas, we gave my son a son a shirt that said something like "The English Language - cobbled together by three blind men with a German dictionary". :D
:eyebrow: German
terrorists? :3eye:
The car needs to be cleaned.
The car needs cleaning.
The car needs cleaned. :eyebrow::headshake
;)From the guy who says "people that..." rather than "people who..." :headshake
You're not addressing "needs enlightened." To be = extraneous.
I don't think the collective "us" you speak of needs enlightening
Might be more correct. Whether or not it should be 'need' or 'needs', I'm not sure. Having used 'us' as a collective noun rather than a pronoun, need may be correct. That's an area I always find difficult. Like for instance 'a number of us were/was ...' My natural speech inclination is to use were in that instance, because I'm referring to multiple people. But 'a number of people' could be considered singular. Same with 'team'. The team was on time/the team were on time.
'needs enlightened' jars with me. I don't think 'to be' is exrtraneous. That said, I just automatically insert that as I read it, so it really doesn't matter and certainly doesn't need correcting for it to be clear.
'people that' as opposed to 'people who' is a matter of dialect as much as it is a matter of grammar. Perhaps your ommision of 'to be' is also a dialectical matter.
There was a day when I was very sure of my grammar skills. There was another thread in the cellar, the one about teams and such, that made me think differently. I don't remember anything from school! :)
I do remember something about "more nearly correct." REasoning was, you can't be MORE correct, so to say more correct is incorrect. It is "more nearly correct." I NEVER understood how that made more sense, or was more, ahem, nearly correct.
I give up on grammar. Let's fight about terrorists again. :lol:
People that, is grammatically correct.
The car needs cleaned, is not. :p
*chuckles*
Actually, that makes sense. More nearly correct rather than more correct, I mean.
I still find grammar problematic. Primarily because my natural dialect is very different from standard (Queen's) English. But also because unless I am writing an academic paper, I don't give it so much thought.
People that, is grammatically correct.
The car needs cleaned, is not. :p
People are WHOs, not THATs.
"Vegetables are sensual, people are sensuous."
--Dean Wermer's wife
(or is it the other way around?)
And, to transpose, it would have been "the car needs cleaning" since I said "needs enlightening."
I never said anything about cars being cleaned. I was talking about people being enlightened. Besides, I washed my car saturday and now it's filthy with road salt and road dirt and I bought new windshield fluid only to find no fluid is coming out and I was blind half the way home last night and, and, and...
Now, see. The fucking terrorists WON!
:)
People I know are whos, people I don't know are thats. It's grammatically correct.:p
Hell I don't know. Could be. I'm not even sure I'm me, right now.
:headspins:
Actually, either 'who' or 'that' is acceptable and both are and have been in use for pretty much as long as the English language has existed in its modern (or nearly modern) form. As a quick rule it's generally more acceptable to use 'who' with people and 'that' with objects, but that rule is far from hard and fast.
At least not as hard and fast as she is.
It's my ear that (who?) hates it.
I heard a commercial for some charity the other day:
"You never know how basic essentials are until you have none."
Um, what?
My ear picks up stuff it hates. I don't know if my ear is wrong or right most of the time. Stupid ear.
At least not as hard and fast as she is.
Hard, not fast. :rolleyes:
Not fast, Ms off-like-a-rocket? Pshaw.
Huh? Quick temper, maybe. Fast, not. Two entirely different things. A person that likes 'em fast should know the difference. ;)
No, no, sloooowww ride, take it eaaasssyyy. :blush:
It's my ear that (who?) hates it.
I heard a commercial for some charity the other day:
"You never know how basic essentials are until you have none."
Um, what?
My ear picks up stuff it hates. I don't know if my ear is wrong or right most of the time. Stupid ear.
Oh that is the Tide commercial. That jars me too. It is because basic essentials seems redundant or maybe it has to do with a person who has nothing usually are reduced to living with basics or essentials.
I don't know.
Also,I think it is 'You need enlightening" and not needs but it's just because it feels right. lol
Yeah, that sentence boggles me. Essentials are basic. But of course. But, you know HOW basic because you have none? HUH?
I mean, I get what they're trying to get to: you take the little things, like soap, for granted.
As to needing cleaned or enlightened, I've given up. I mean, I'll still bathe and stuff, but...
(and, I've come full circle. Second time today.)
:lol:
Given the statement then the correction by Janet Napolitano I thought this political cartoon from the Houston Chronicle pretty appropriate!
The NY Times said her gaff is just about as good as George Bush's "Heck of a job, Browie!"
:thumbsup:
It WAS the equivalent of "heck of a job."
They should put it in the dictionary as an example of Faux Pas.
It these politicians would only say, "Oops, sorry, that was a slip of the tongue, I didn't really mean that". But they start to scramble like a high school quarterback and just make it worse. Maybe because it wasn't a slip of the tongue, and when they said it, they really believed it? :litebulb:
Yeah, that sentence boggles me. Essentials are basic. But of course. But, you know HOW basic because you have none? HUH?
I mean, I get what they're trying to get to: you take the little things, like soap, for granted.
As to needing cleaned or enlightened, I've given up. I mean, I'll still bathe and stuff, but...
(and, I've come full circle. Second time today.)
:lol:
you funny :D
and no worries your full circles are charming.
They should put it in the dictionary as an example of Faux Pas.
It these politicians would only say, "Oops, sorry, that was a slip of the tongue, I didn't really mean that". But they start to scramble like a high school quarterback and just make it worse. Maybe because it wasn't a slip of the tongue, and when they said it, they really believed it? :litebulb:
Unfortunately, though the public generally express a desire for politicians to admit human frailties in such a manner; the actual result of doing so is a press (and voter) lynching. They're damned if they do and damned if they don't.
And, to transpose, it would have been "the car needs cleaning" since I said "needs enlightening."
I don't think the collective "us" you speak of needs enlightened.
jus sayin. because "the collective "us" you speak of needs enlightening."
would be correct. I'm still not sure about the other. Another reason why I hate grammar.
Yeah, the press can take just the words, often out of context, and skew them in a desired direction. But when somebody is making a statement on camera, and know they fucked up, I should think an immediate admission of that mistake would go well with the voters. I suppose the video could be edited for the same skewing, but someone (internet) would make the full account available. Maybe I'm dreaming.
Douglas R. Laird was a guest on the Minnesota Public Radio Midday program. . He was Northwest Airline's security directory (worldwide) in the 90's. He's currently a security consultant. The purpose of the airline security director is to in-take all the information from the govt and make recommendations to captains, and design airline wide security.
Major points he made:
Very dubious of 1hr rule. He does not know any security professionals or captains that can make sense of that rule.
No advancement in passenger screening from the past decade has actually increased security. Checked baggage security with computer tomography is quite effective.
Just because someone is on a watch list doesn't mean the government wants that person to be denied boarding or even tipped off that they are on a list.
Pre-9/11 airlines used the CAPS profiling system (based on financial information and flight history) which would have flagged the DTW terrorist for additional screening. That system no longer exists. It's been replaced by a DHS system. He recommends allowing airlines to use CAPS again for secondary screening flags.
He recommends we send all the back scatter body scanners to the major gateways of US bound flights instead of scanning people in or leaving the US. Third world screening is an issue, so focus should be on major gateways to the US.
:thumbsup:
It WAS the equivalent of "heck of a job."
Well, her statement was her own and not from the President so you can argue that one either way. Perhaps it was more like Alexander Haig announcing "I'm in charge here" or Rumsfeld going on about "shock and awe"
The frustrating part is that the Republicans will now claim it is because Democrats are soft on terror and the Democrats will go on about Republicans holding up funding or holding up on nominations, both of which have happened to some extent. They just don't get it, this is a national issue and most Americans are tired of everything in Washington being about party platforms and ideology and partisan politics. I'm 53 and I've never seen this land so polarized politically. Maybe we just need Klaatu and his robot, Gort to pay Earth a visit and give us a good lecture! ;)
jus sayin. because "the collective "us" you speak of needs enlightening."
would be correct. I'm still not sure about the other. Another reason why I hate grammar.
You're right...I said "enlightened." I don't know. I needs me some of that there enlightenin' stuff.
Actually Shaw, I have been hearing the (to be) not said so much lately that this has become a pet peeve of mine. Where are all the friggin grammar nazis today? Sheesh! We needs helpin 'ere.
Yeah, my pet peeve is "who" and "that." Even though it's correct either way, it seems to fairly shout at me. Of course, when I set my mind to dwelling on something...
;)
whom vs. who
and
upon vs. on
are mine . . . reasons 2,564,389 and 2,564,390 that I hate grammar
They just don't get it, this is a national issue and most Americans are tired of everything in Washington being about party platforms and ideology and partisan politics. I'm 53 and I've never seen this land so polarized politically. Maybe we just need Klaatu and his robot, Gort to pay Earth a visit and give us a good lecture! ;)
Hear Hear. Or is it here here? Dat true, anyway. :thumb:
whom vs. who
and
upon vs. on
are mine . . . reasons 2,564,389 and 2,564,390 that I hate grammar
Another peeve: into vs. to. For instance, he went in the house. No, he went INTO the house. If he went in the house, he did the act of "going" (went) inside the house where he already was. He basically just pissed in the corner of your living room. There are many examples of into vs to...it makes my ears bleed. I see it in professional publications all the time.
great, now I can add another to my list!
Another peeve: into vs. to. For instance, he went in the house. No, he went INTO the house. If he went in the house, he did the act of "going" (went) inside the house where he already was. He basically just pissed in the corner of your living room. There are many examples of into vs to...it makes my ears bleed. I see it in professional publications all the time.
Wait, who urinated in the house?
Classicman. You just can't take him anywhere *sighs*
Wait, who urinated in the house?
He! He was the one. He went in the house, he does it all the time. Damn he.
I don't think so, but I don't really know. It seems to me that "to be" became part of our vernacular, and we're used to hearing it that way, but the sentence is fine without it. I've been wrong before, though. (shhhhh)
I disagree. If you're going to omit the verb of being you should use the present participle not the past. Needs enlightening vs needs to be enlightened.
It's a regional thing though, my room mate from mid/western PA didn't use 'to be' either. The thing that really bugged me though, was when she would say "The car needs washed" she would say "warshed".
Ah, that's different. It's perfectly acceptable to say, "The car needs warshed", in fact it might be mandatory. :haha:
Grammar terrorism. Accck! :thepain:
I can't tell if it's the bias of the media I soak up, or an actually reasonable reading of the climate right now, but I get a sense that people are sick of suffering so much of a headache going through airport security when it so completely failed.
I'm getting optimistic that we might roll back some of the more unproductive security measures and focus in on the few that really work. Trade some of our illusory security for that liberty we hocked back in '01.
But I don't watch TV. Is it just my bubble?
I think you're right, gvidas, people are fed up with the bullshit, and attitudes of these self important assholes in the airport. I wonder how much of the population actually fly. I don't, because I don't have to, but would if it weren't such a hassle. Plus I can be all smug about not creating a larger carbon footprint by flying. :haha:
I disagree. If you're going to omit the verb of being you should use the present participle not the past. Needs enlightening vs needs to be enlightened.
It's a regional thing though, my room mate from mid/western PA didn't use 'to be' either. The thing that really bugged me though, was when she would say "The car needs washed" she would say "warshed".
That sounds right, though. Ugh, in my head, I hate to add "to be."
Etre!
(My grandma used to say feesh for fish.) Definitely some regional differences.
That sounds right, though. Ugh, in my head, I hate to add "to be."
Etre!
(My grandma used to say feesh for fish.) Definitely some regional differences.
My pet peeve is when someone says "try and" instead of "try to".
From Gizmodo.
Somebody needs to do a break even analysis to determine exactly how much we should spend to save how much infrastructure and/or lives.
Ugh, in my head, I hate to add "to be."
I'm just the opposite, when I hear it without the "to be" its like nails on a chalkboard. <shrug>
(My grandma used to say feesh for fish.) Definitely some regional differences.
My grandma used to say sang-witch for sandwich.
From Gizmodo.
:thumb: I loved that post when I saw it on 538 -- that graphic is just the kicker!
My pet peeve is when someone says "try and" instead of "try to".
That's another one of mine! When I hear it on TV or in a movie or on the news, I cringe.
Yeah, I'm no fun to watch TV with. :p
Another peeve: into vs. to. For instance, he went in the house. No, he went INTO the house. If he went in the house, he did the act of "going" (went) inside the house where he already was. He basically just pissed in the corner of your living room. There are many examples of into vs to...it makes my ears bleed. I see it in professional publications all the time.
Good God, Shut the fuck up, you sound like a fucking twit. Get on with the substance of the discussion. You are starting to sound like a school marm.
oh my, excuse me. I actually had something to post about the enlightenin' I got from this thread, interweaved with discussions about what I was talking about, what I was feeling about these latest incidents, and how they relate to my typical world view and my profession. THen I got embarrassed at my openness and deleted it.
Ha! Good luck with your god shutting me the fuck up.
I'll shut down for a while. I'll never shut up.
I'll never shut up.
I don't want you to to STFU in general, just in the case of picking apart stupid ideas of what you think people should or should not post as they write their thoughts. Now STFU.
There is no God, if there was you would have been smited.
Fuck you, you giant dickhead.
Do you ever get sick of yourself? I mean, I do, myself. But I'm aware of it, and the effect I might have on others. I don't think you self-examine that much, but you should know, for the record...you are tiresome. And boring.
Fuck you, you giant dickhead.
Do you ever get sick of yourself? I mean, I do, myself. But I'm aware of it, and the effect I might have on others. I don't think you self-examine that much, but you should know, for the record...you are tiresome. And boring.
:lol2:
Happy new year psycho! Love ya!
The South Park Underpants Gnomes have taken to becoming suicide bombers.
Do you ever get sick of yourself? I mean, I do, myself. But I'm aware of it, and the effect I might have on others. I don't think you self-examine that much, but you should know, for the record...you are tiresome. And boring.
Wow. No. I don't really care that much wtf you or anyone else thinks. But I do respect a lot of people on here. Boring? Wow, crushed, not. What you see is what you get. Do I get sick of myself? No. Not for a fucking minute. If I did I would go and get some drugs to make me accept myself. But alas, I don't feel a need to do that. Or I would just sit around my house and feel sorry for myself. But no, I have never done that. How about you? People do what they have to do to get by in life. I am half way there. So I am going to ride this sled down to the bottom and have a hell of a time on the way there. I hope you can do the same. Peace.
My pet peeve is when someone says "try and" instead of "try to".
Not one that bothers me. It's simply making two verbal phrases, two verbal concepts packed into one sentence: the trying,
and the other one. Though
try to is tighter.
Honest colloquialisms don't bother me as would outright barbarisms.
Most of these peevs are examples of different dialects. One dialect in British English (and one in American English) has become dominant and therefore is considered correct. There is a risk, in seeking correct grammatical usage, of devaluing dialects which are just as 'correct' in terms of communication. In Britain this was wrapped up very strongly in regional and class values: we use 'Queen's English'. Queen's English, or Standard English was just the regional dialect of the Home Counties; the wealthiest and most powerful region in the country.
Fuck you, you giant dickhead.
Do you ever get sick of yourself? ...
Obviously not. Haven't you seen the healthcare thread? It's like :zzz::zzz::dedhorse::zzz::zzz:
Methinks he hath gone offeth his rocker!
Who was he talking to about drugs and not sitting around and feeling sorry for ones self? Not me, I think. I have a job, and when I hated my job and my life I changed it. I am a lot of things, but a life-moper isn't one of them.
Maybe someone in his family is a druggie and he's going through a hard time. I'm sorry merc, I hope things get better for you real soon. :comfort:
From the Atlanta Journal/Constitution
I can't wait till someone feels they are "violated" by a full body scanner and sues.
It's certainly going to be interesting for those of us with body jewelry.
lol - I hadn't thought about that, cloud.
body scanner at Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport would not necessarily have detected the explosives which the would-be syringe bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab had sewn into his underwear. A Dutch military intelligence source told De Telegraaf newspaper that Al Qaeda has its own security scanners and has been practicing ways of concealing explosives.
The terrorist group has even carried out test runs at smuggling explosives through European airports, the paper reports.
On Monday Schiphol's operational manager Ad Rutten said the explosives carried by the 23-year-old Nigerian Abdulmutallab may well have been detected had he been scanned by one of the airport's 15 body scanners. Schiphol was the first airport to run a trial of body scanners, which use sound waves to see through passengers' clothing. At present the scanners are only an optional alternative to the conventional metal detector, as European privacy laws prevent them being made compulsory.
http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/%E2%80%9Cal-qaeda-practises-beating-body-scanners%E2%80%9Dwhy is it our fault, and not Nigeria or Holland? blaming the target?
This is an interesting story. I don't know how much of it is true, it is basically one guys story. But it sounds plausible.
http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2009/12/flight_253_passenger_kurt_hask.htmlGovernment lie? pshaw. :haha:
It's quite possible the the man in orange had nothing to do with the bomber, and was part of a separate investigation. But the dog nailed him with child porn/drugs/live animals at an embarrassing time in the investigation for the FBI. So since Mr orange was only one of the people involved, they didn't want to tip off the others. If you don't like that scenario, I can think of a dozen more. Sometimes they lie for a good reason.
Certainly, porn is almost invariable tainted with, um... fluids. ;)
but most adults would be too, wouldn't they? Dogs could smell such "fluids" on even clean adults, right?
eh, I'm just imagining things.
Hey, stick to your cats. :p
cats are porn, 'cause they're just that sexy.
In a, ya know, metaphorical way (no bestiality, thanks!)
dogs can sniff out porn?
Only immediately after they finish one of those marathon scenes.
why is it our fault, and not Nigeria or Holland? blaming the target?
The Dutch claim that the US was opposed to them using their full body scanners because of privacy issues. But the Dutch now have two scanners that show a more stylistic picture of the person being scanned instead of pictures of folk's genetalia.
I also head it was against Dutch privacy laws. :confused:
why is it our fault, and not Nigeria or Holland? blaming the target?
Nope, according to the Telegraph, you're blaming us.
Interested to read how well Muslims are integrated in the US though. Learn something new every day.
Article
here.
Snippets here:
Americans blame Britain for rise of Islamic extremism
Britain has been accused of being a “menace to the outside world” as American anger over the UK’s perceived failure to tackle Islamic extremism intensified.
By Toby Harnden in Washington
Published: 10:03PM GMT 30 Dec 2009
Senior policymakers in the United States said the attempted suicide bomb attack by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who is thought to have become radicalised in London, was further evidence that one of the biggest threats to US security came from Britain, where the capital has been dubbed “Londonistan” by critics.
There was also criticism of the “ghettoisation” of British Muslims, compared with the “assimilation” of Muslims in America.
Muslim immigrants to the US were much better integrated in society and considered themselves Americans “within a generation” because the US embraced the “melting pot” concept, said Marc Thiessen, former chief speechwriter for President George W Bush and a former Pentagon aide.
“That doesn’t exist in Europe in the same way and particularly in Britain, which is a more socially stratified society than the US,” he said. “They live in Muslim ghettoes and feel alienated from the larger society and not accepted.”
Daniel Pipes, a scholar on radical Islam and former adviser to Rudolph Giuliani during his presidential campaign, said: “The UK is a menace to the outside world. It’s been a problem for years now. This is just one more example.”
Charles Allen, a recently-retired veteran CIA officer who was intelligence chief at the Department of Homeland Security under Mr Bush, said: “The British have an immense problem. There are more challenges in Muslim immigrants integrating into British society than there is in America, a lack of assimilation, a great deal of alienation.”
Oops, all our fault after all. For being pinkie liberals on the one hand, and fascist ghetto-makers on the other. I do not believe for one minute that the general English approach of stand-offish suspicion and then wholesale tolerance of foreign cultures has anything to do with
some terrorists having lived in this country previously. If they had learned to hate this country then they would not have been trying to attack America. If they tolerated this country but hated America they would not have tried to bomb London.
Fruitloops are fruitloops. IRA murderers have started up again in Ireland. Some people like to kill. On one side of the fence you can argue that a liberal attitude gives them the freedom to do so. Or you can argue that a repressed regime gives you the excuse. Or that those fighting against the repressors do (think loyalist paramilitaries).
No good comes of terrorism.
And no good comes from blaming anyone other than terrorists for their actions.
That is stupid. Americans do not blame the UK for extremism amongst Muslims. Sure the UK has problems because of the way they have delt with their own immigration issues, but we have our problems too on that front and they are very well known. The Telegraph is fomenting finger pointing.
There was also criticism of the “ghettoisation” of British Muslims, compared with the “assimilation” of Muslims in America.
:lol2:
Right. Why, some of my best friends are Muslim. I just wouldn't let one marry my daughter.
Good Lord! the Telegraph fomenting finger pointing? I can't believe it :P
[eta] worth remembering that there are different moslem communities in the UK; some of which are very integrated, and some of which are not. When I lived in Bolton, the diferent communities were very mixed. When i came to Yorkshire I found something quite different. That's because the immigration patterns and places of origin were different. In halifax, for example, the majority of moslem immigrants come from one very small geographical area of Pakistan: mostly from the same town. It's a very traditional and old fashioned town and they've brought those values with them. The men look to the old country when they wish to marry and so the girls who come over as their brides tend to be very traditional (many don't speak English). They are almost entirely separate, culturally, from the rest of the town and maintain very strong links with their home communities. This isn't the case everywhere.
I went to a wedding a few years ago, one of my fellow councillor's sons was marrying a girl who'd come over from their hometown. Standing outside the mosque it was blindingly obvious which guests were from Halifax (very traditional in dress and demeanour) and which were from Bradford (much more westernised dress and the women were much less demure in attitude).
The Telegraph is fomenting finger pointing.
Don't worry - I only read our right wing press for educational purposes. Finger pointing is their raison d'etre.
We should all be collectively pointing our fingers at the Saudi's among others...
Heh, people are now calling this "Underpantsgate". :lol:
Underpants Fly might be just as good.
say what you want about Obama, he is not afraid to take the hard knocks and accept responsibility; to say, we were wrong, I am responsible, and we're gonna fix it. If it were Bush, he'd be denying accountability and pointing fingers at others.
"You're doin' a heck of a job, Janetie"
Latest terrorist attempt:
Cop Hurt By Car Bomb In Northern Ireland
A policeman has been seriously injured after a bomb exploded under his car in Northern Ireland.
Peadar Heffron, 33, had just driven off when the blast happened in Milltown Road, Randalstown in County Antrim.
He was taken to hospital and army bomb disposal experts were called to the scene of the attack.
It happened just a few miles from Antrim town, where Sappers Mark Quinsey, 23, and Patrick Azimkar, 21, were shot dead by the Real IRA outside Massereene Army barracks last March.
Northern Ireland Security Minister Paul Goggins condemned the latest atrocity.
He said: "This vile attack will sicken people across Northern Ireland."
The one positive result of the bombing of the World Trade Centre - to me - was that Americans finally started to see that terrorism was not just forceful public opinion. Lack of American support had a real impact on the Troubles. All of a sudden, men like Bobby Sands went from being a martyr, to a criminal. What would American public opinion have been if a 9/11 bomber starved himself to death? Ho hum, one less mouth to feed - as opposed to a political prisoner demanding to be treated as such and not as a criminal.
This is only the most recent attack BTW. Another exmaple was the
girlfriend of a police dog handler, targeted in October last year. Car bomb. She escaped with injuries.
These people are well schooled in the divisive and personal nature of terrorism.
The one positive result of the bombing of the World Trade Centre - to me - was that Americans finally started to see that terrorism was not just forceful public opinion.
Exactly when did we Americans think that?
Lack of American support had a real impact on the Troubles.
It will likely be less going forward.
What would American public opinion have been if a 9/11 bomber starved himself to death? Ho hum, one less mouth to feed - as opposed to a political prisoner demanding to be treated as such and not as a criminal.
?????
Here's my tinfoil hat. :tinfoil: Lets think- weren't there some patriot act articles that were supposed to be out of effect as of Jan. 1st? And now they are not? Just a thought- I'm not really saying it was definitely a false flag operation but.....I thought I'd throw that out there. (tail-posting anyway)
I just heard from Rudy Giuliani that there were no terrorist attempts in the US under Bush, only under Obama:crazy:. Later his press person amended that to mean since 9-11, which was still wrong.
What's the difference between a shoe bomber and an underpants bomber? The difference is that Rudy doesn't count the shoe bomber as an attempted terrorist attack.
Do they really think our attention span is that short? I seriously don't remember liberals undermining Bush this way. We may have questioned his intelligence, but we didn't tell the world that he was weak.
The next election is going to be ugly. The Republicans might have had a shot if they'd stayed near the center. I think they are going to dump Steele and move further to the right into what used to be considered the fringe. The independents are going to have to pick the party they are less disgusted with or stay home.
Meanwhile, Cheney and company are going to be painting a big target on the White House, and by extension the entire country, by telling the world we have a weak president. This may hamper any attempt to try a softer, more comprehensive strategy that might have a chance at success.
A pure military strategy will not work. You can't bomb these people back to the stone age. The hard core are already living in the stone age.
As to the IRA.
Personally, I think those prisoners were political prisoners. Yes, they committed violent acts. But then so did the British government they were opposed to, and so did their unionist counterparts. I won't sit here and say they did right. It was an ugly time, and both sides engaged in the ugliest kind of conflict.
But they were political prisoners. They weren't just 'criminals' they were soldiers fighting a guerilla war.
The level of support they had in America has been overblown. Mainstream American politicians were very reluctant to offer any kind of moral or political support to them, despite having some sympathy for their cause. I had sympathy for their cause. Didn't make me a supporter.
The worst violence and damage was within NI itself. Both sides of that conflict hurt innocent people and treated ordinary civlians appallingly at times. Then again, for all that they bullied, abused and terrorised the local communities, they also provided something that was at times needed by the Catholic civilians: a 'police force' they could turn to. Because they sure as hell couldn't turn to the actual police.
When it came to the violence on the mainland; the majority of IRA bomb attacks were preceded by warning phonecalls. Bit different to walking onto a plane and blowing yourself up. Apart from the pub bombings ( a very dark chapter) and the Brighton Hotel, most IRA attacks were designed to cause maximum disruption ancd fear with minimum loss of life.
The attacks over here caused distress and fear, but most of all they kept NI in our news and in our minds. If they hadn't been waging that war, we'd have been happy, as a nation to just try and forget what was going on over there. leave it to the politicians. I can't tell you how many times I heard someone say: oh just let the bastards kill each other; leave us out of it.
We were the imperial power. We were supporting/condoning/instrumental in unionist violence and oppression. We were utterly unsympathetic to the plight of the Catholic population, who'd been pushed into an apartheid of sorts.
What is happening now is different. What we have now is a kind of global terrorism. It's a drawing up of lines between extremists and idealists. It is not an oppressed indigenous population attempting to free themselves from an aggressive and overbearing oppressor.
Interesting article about American involvement in the Troubles.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ira/reports/america.html
Nowadays, I'd say those who are attempting to continue the fight are terrorists and criminals. They do not have popular support. They are not fulfilling a needed function: they are diehards who refuse to let it go. They are acting against the interests and desires of both sides.
The next election is going to be ugly. The Republicans might have had a shot if they'd stayed near the center. I think they are going to dump Steele and move further to the right into what used to be considered the fringe. The independents are going to have to pick the party they are less disgusted with or stay home.
That sounds pretty much like the last, what 3-4 elections for me. Nothing new there. I think once you discount the hardcore extremists on both sides and those who vote party lines, thats been the attitude of most people for well over a decade, if not longer.
Meanwhile, Cheney and company are going to be painting a big target on the White House, and by extension the entire country, by telling the world we have a weak president. This may hamper any attempt to try a softer, more comprehensive strategy that might have a chance at success.
Bullshit. Sounds like an excuse in the making. You're already blaming the other side in advance? C'mon. If something happens and Obama proves his strength, it won't matter what anyone else says - especially Cheney. I mean seriously what RATIONAL person is listening to him anyway.
...The one positive result of the bombing of the World Trade Centre - to me - was that Americans finally started to see that terrorism was not just forceful public opinion. Lack of American support had a real impact on the Troubles. All of a sudden, men like Bobby Sands went from being a martyr, to a criminal. What would American public opinion have been if a 9/11 bomber starved himself to death? Ho hum, one less mouth to feed - as opposed to a political prisoner demanding to be treated as such and not as a criminal.
....
I always wondered why Bush didn't invade Ireland.:cool: What's so different about Ireland and Iraq?
That sounds pretty much like the last, what 3-4 elections for me. ...
It's been that way since the Democrats had the unmittigated audacity to begin impeachment hearings against Nixon. Sour grapes, and vengeance.
Exactly when did we Americans think that?
From Dana's article (which is actually about how little support their was in America, so if anything it's biased the other way).
The Irish diaspora, especially those who settled in the United States, have played an intregal part in the Troubles. It is true that a small portion of Irish-Americans have always supported the Irish Republican Army
however, many Irish-American supporters of the IRA remained wedded to the idea that only violence would bring about a united Ireland.
For a quarter century, the IRA attracted a core of followers in the United States who were loyal and dedicated.
In 1969, as TV images of Catholics being attacked were beamed back to Irish Catholic enclaves in Boston and New York, hats were literally passed around pubs from Southie to Woodside in Queens. Fundraising for the IRA, or at least for IRA prisoners, peaked whenever the British were seen to do something outrageous, such as when British soldiers shot 14 civil rights marchers dead on Bloody Sunday in 1972 or in 1981 when Margaret Thatcher allowed the hunger strikers to die.
It will likely be less going forward.
Don't get me wrong - I was writing about support in the past, not a current situation. And I have always been aware that it was a minority support.
?????
Not 100% sure what you're questioning. I was stating my opinion that I don't think the IRA were political prisoners, and I doubt many Americans will see the terrorists involved in the current terrorism of America in a purely political light either. Bobby Sands starved himself to death and I didn't give a shit (poor pun). It wasn't meant to be anti-American.
As to the IRA.
Personally, I think those prisoners were political prisoners. Yes, they committed violent acts. But they were political prisoners. They weren't just 'criminals' they were soldiers fighting a guerilla war.
I know that there were mistakes made on both sides. But IRA mistakes tended to be far bloodier. They were ruthless, cruel and engaged in criminal activities. And after all they were accorded political status in the end - after all that fuss about the Lockerbie bomber going home to die - how many IRA members with blood on their hands were freed before their sentences were up?
The level of support they had in America has been overblown.
Interesting article. I'm not completely convinced, given that this is the first time I have read this and have had no time to read around it. But I will do and am willing to concede that much of what I swallowed without question was as a teenager.
When it came to the violence on the mainland; the majority of IRA bomb attacks were preceded by warning phonecalls. Bit different to walking onto a plane and blowing yourself up. Apart from the pub bombings ( a very dark chapter) and the Brighton Hotel, most IRA attacks were designed to cause maximum disruption ancd fear with minimum loss of life.
I disagree. In Omagh three warnings were given, each slighty contradicting the other. The police were clearing the wrong area when the bomb went off. And Enniskillen, no warning - and in fact it was only cackhandedness that prevented a far higher death toll that day - 20 miles away a bomb was planted at a memorial service for the Boys and Girls Brigade - 4 times the size of the one which exploded. But that's Ireland which we weren't discussing.
So on the mainland. The warning system just doesn't appear to be a real failsafe.
The warning system still allowed two shopkeepers to die at Canary Wharf.
Manchester City Centre cleared of shoppers and workers, but 212 still injured.
Pub bombings - Guildford 4 dead, Woolwich 2 dead, Birmingham (one inadequate warning) two pubs bombed 21 dead.
Hyde Park and Regents Park bombings - the Royal Green Jackets playing a medley of songs from Oliver, civilians among the wounded, 7 horses killed or so badly maimed they had to be put down - no warning.
Brighton Hotel bombing, no warning - 5 dead many seriously wounded
Deal Barracks bombed - the Royal Marines School of Music that takes in 16 year olds to train in music and as medics. 11 dead, 23 seriously injured, almost all teens and new recruits.
Warrington bombs - warning given for Liverpool, 15 miles away. 2 children killed in a shopping street the day before Mother's Day.
Two Australian tourists shot and killed in Roermond in the Netherlands, mistakenly identified as off duty soldiers.
The attacks over here caused distress and fear
And death.
My point being if you don't like killing civilians than you have to be a hell of a lot more careful than the IRA were.
Please don't think I'm a supporter of the Loyalists either. I'm only picking up on the death of civilians (okay, not Deal, but they were unarmed kids) on the Mainland. Yes, I think you're right re the situation being different. Yes I agree that the most damage was done in Ireland - the builders, taxi drivers, passers by, partners, families etc etc. It's all revolting.
It still affects me as I'm sure you can tell. A slightly older generation grew up in fear of The Bomb. That didn't mean shit to me. I grew up in fear of the IRA. Of having stations and shopping centres and office buildings blown up.
Some final facts before I stop flogging this poor old horse.
These are not offered as evidence for my personal beliefs - they prove nothing one way of the other. They are simply to remind people what we lived through.
IRA casualities:
Another detailed study Lost Lives,[113] states the Provisional IRA was responsible for the deaths of 1,781 people up to 2004:
644 civilians,
456 British military (including British Army, RAF, Royal Irish Regiment, Royal Navy, and Territorial Army)
273 Royal Ulster Constabulary (including RUC reserve)
182 Ulster Defence Regiment and 5 former British Army
23 Northern Ireland Prison Service officers and five British police officers
163 Republican paramilitary members (including IRA members, most caused their own deaths when bombs they were transporting exploded prematurely)
28 loyalist paramilitary members.
Six were Gardaí and one was Irish Army.
....Bullshit. Sounds like an excuse in the making. You're already blaming the other side in advance? C'mon. If something happens and Obama proves his strength, it won't matter what anyone else says - especially Cheney. I mean seriously what RATIONAL person is listening to him anyway.
If you dont think that this latest terrorist attempt has been politicized by the right, then you havent been watching or reading the news.....not just Chaney, but Gingrigh, Guiliani, members of Congress using it for fund-raising by suggesting that Obama and Democrats are weak on terrorism, most of the neo-con talking heads, etc.
National security should be, and has always been, the one issue around which Americans unite. They (we) certainly did so after 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan....right up until the "war on terror" was relocated to Iraq.
But it is an issue on which many (not all are that callous) Republicans think they can "win" and have no problem with politicizing the issue.
As always, it's about "winning" and not what is good for us, for our country.
It will be the death of all of us, the death of our way of life, the death of our freedom. It is evil in its most dangerous form.
Politics have been riddled with evil since the beginning of organization of said politics, but the pockets of "doing what is right" for the people have become almost non-existent. Greed is the supreme ruler, might equals right its most faithful and its strongest minion.
To say that those in the Middle East have no grievance, real or perceived, against us is wrong. Most of the 20th century involved the US or some European country mucking about there because of oil or some strategic position related to oil. If there wasn't a drop of oil in the Middle East, we'd be pretty much ignoring it the same way we mostly ignore Africa.
Most of the terrorists have overplayed their hand with a majority of the populations. But even in places where they are generally not welcome, they have support. And in some places they have a lot of support. How important is even a small amount of support? In the U.S. Eric Rudolph was on the run for 5 years.
It is thought that Rudolph had the assistance of sympathizers while evading capture. Some in the area were vocal in support of him. Two country music songs were written about him and a locally top-selling T-shirt read: "Run Rudolph Run." The Anti-Defamation League noted that "extremist chatter on the Internet has praised Rudolph as 'a hero' and some followers of hate groups are calling for further acts of violence to be modeled after the bombings he is accused of committing."[7]
The solution to the Irish Troubles was a political one - the Good Friday agreement and a power-sharing executive, essentially dividing control between Sinn Fein and the Democratic Unionist parties. One party gets the first minister post and the other gets the deputy first minister post. This is a bit like forcing Obama to have Dick Cheney as his VP.
It will be the death of all of us, the death of our way of life, the death of our freedom. It is evil in its most dangerous form.
I don't know about taking it that far but as a country, we have the political system we deserve. As a collective, we tend to make politics an emotional game and not a logical one. We eat up emotional issues and, in return,are force fed back to us. We don't hold our local politicians (senators and House members) responsible and always find a scapegoat, which in turn allows politicians to do whatever they desire without much accountability.
Until the US population decides to take action and actually live up to the potential of democratic system, nothing will change for the better. Unfortunately, every four years we are seduced by another person who convinces us that rogue politicians can save our country, and not the people ourselves.
I don't know about taking it that far but as a country, we have the political system we deserve. As a collective, we tend to make politics an emotional game and not a logical one. We eat up emotional issues and, in return,are force fed back to us. We don't hold our local politicians (senators and House members) responsible and always find a scapegoat, which in turn allows politicians to do whatever they desire without much accountability.
We also need leaders who are smart and engaging. Reagan got fed a lot of bad ideas by his advisors, but as an experienced pitchman was able to sell them. Nixon may have been smarter than Kennedy, but had the presence of a rock. We should start a breeding program hooking up supernerds with supermodels. Maybe Nicole Kidman can hook up with Larry Page. You might get the best of both worlds, like Ivanka Trump. Of course, you might get a whole crop of Sarah Palins and Ann Coulters, but we already have good special education programs.
If you dont think that this latest terrorist attempt has been politicized ..... etc.
But it is an issue on which many have no problem with politicizing the issue.
I would say it is clearly being played up by the right and down by the left as issues like this always have been. Nothing new.
As always, it's about "winning" and not what is good for us, for our country. Greed is the supreme ruler, might equals right its most faithful and its strongest minion.
Sad, but I agree.
You might get the best of both worlds, like Ivanka Trump.
:headshake
Oh i recall the fear Sundae. I was working in a clothes shop in the arndale centre in Bolton in 1990. We had a couple of bomb scares. All of us filing out and watching as the bomb-squad went in. I lived not far from Warrington, where the young lad got his face blown off. That one, by the way was a horrible accident and the IRA made a public apology for it. he was not their intended victim. Cold comfort. But intentions fdo count for something.
Not all the warnings worked, and not all bombs came with warnings. But the majority on the mainland did.
It was a bloody time. They were engaged in a bloody war, and it was one waged against civlians as much as it was waged against the forces. The attacks on military and police could be seen as a legitimate target. Don't forget police in NI during this period weren't like ordinary bobbies doing their beat, they were one of the arms of the state used to suppress dissent; they were overwhelmingly protestant unionists and deeply antaganonistic to the Catholic civilian population.
I'm not in any way trying to say that what they did was right. Just that they had a legitimate cause. Some of what they did was legitimate martial activity in the face of an occupying and settled oppressor. Some of it was downright despicable. Our state has killed civilians whilst waging war. They killed civilians whilst waging war. The only distinctions were that they were often deliberately targetting civilians (as opposed to them being 'collaterol damage) and they weren't a recognised army.
Those who were imprisoned for terrorist activity were political prisoners. What they did might have been despicable and inhuman. But it was a political fight. There is a difference between them and someone who loses his temper and batters his wife to death; or breaks into a house and steals a TV. It is still criminal; but it is also political.
I was terrified by the threat of bombs. Christmas shopping in Manchester was frightening. Working in a shopping centre a few miles from Warrington was frightening. Much of what the IRA did was beneath contempt; most particularly the things they did to the civilians on their own side; or those accused of collaboration. Such is the nature of that kind of fight. The French resistance were no kinder to 'collaborators' after the war. And I cannot sit here and feel sympathy for the Algerian liberation fighters, and not also have sympathy for those who fought the same battle in NI. No side had clean hands.
[eta] That said, i completely get the point you were initially making. And I agree with you. I can just imagine the response from the White House were the British PM to start trying to tell the President that he should be treating terrorists as political prisoners. In fact i seem to recall the responses to our calls to treat the Guantanemo inmates with something approaching humanity fell on deaf ears during Bush's premiership. It's a lot easier to see the political cause when it isn't being directed specifically at you.
What else makes it a global war on terror (although most people don't believe in that right now), is that IRA techniques and strategies have been shared: with the PLO, with Al Q in Iraq, and now with the Taliban.
And they themselves took lessons from the Algerians and others. Information flows. That's how it works. Lessons are learned. Just as we learn from you and vice versa.
Good news. We are now safe from 8-year-olds.
From
here
The Transportation Security Administration, under scrutiny after last month’s bombing attempt, has on its Web site a “mythbuster” that tries to reassure the public.Myth: The No-Fly list includes an 8-year-old boy.
Buster: No 8-year-old is on a T.S.A. watch list.
“Meet Mikey Hicks,” said Najlah Feanny Hicks, introducing her 8-year-old son, a New Jersey Cub Scout and frequent traveler who has seldom boarded a plane without a hassle because he shares the name of a suspicious person. “It’s not a myth.”
Michael Winston Hicks’s mother initially sensed trouble when he was a baby and she could not get a seat for him on their flight to Florida at an airport kiosk; airline officials explained that his name “was on the list,” she recalled.
I like the way the TSA can lie while telling the truth. There is no 8-year-old on the watch list,
but there is an 8-year-old being frisked because his name is on the selectee list.I added this to an old thread, so I didn't start yet another one with my inability to get over the past.
Saw this today.
Photos from the Manchester bombing back in 1996. Nothing gory, safe for work.
Although there were injuries from the flying debris this is all about the central blast and shows only damage to streets and buildings.
It was not my town, ever.
But it was my country.
And they smashed it about by.
This isn't a country on the evening news prefaced by the words "Meanwhile, in warn-torn [insert as appropriate]"
Imagine this as your country's second city.
Your shopping district.
Names and shops and streets which are the same as where you live.
No, I will stop now I promise. No-one can change it now, and I do forget for long periods of time. Things like this just blindside me and I find I need to say the same thing all over again.
I'm not making any kind of political or religious point at all. Not this time and maybe it is something I am getting over.
It's a different time and almost a different world.
Except sadly it isn't in global terms.
You don't need desert sand and hot sun to cook your brains.
Or snow and vodka to freeze them.
Or a gun license or lack of.
Build things up, tear them dowm.
My name is Ozymandias etc etc.
Do look at the pics.
They're atmospheric and not at all biased (unlike me).
Yeah. We humans can be evil if we allow ourselves.
There should be a matchmaking website where people who say they wish they were dead and terrorists can register to find each other.
:bolt:
No good, people who say they wish they were dead only mean emotionally. They want to be numb while they smoke, drink, and dance the hoochie koo.
Whereas terrorists are serious about getting their virgins, and want to take along as many to witness their sexual prowess as possible.
I see. That's why terrorists like to travel to Britain, Virgin Atlantic.
Why do terrorists want 72 virgins anyway? I far prefer a mature woman who knows what she is doing.
I once read a compelling paper that argued "72 virgins" was a mistranslation from the most original ancient texts, and that it was actually supposed to be "72 varieties of fruit." There are apparently many other places in the Koran that reference food as sublime reward and note specific numbers of each type of food.
And who knows what that even meant thousands of years ago, in terms of cultural significance?
And who knows what that even meant thousands of years ago, in terms of cultural significance?
A very good point, one that applies to the poetic sections of any given religious text.
And the IRA didn't want virgins, or fruit or anything other than a rainy auld country where they could peddle drugs, ban abortions, break kneecaps and move to America when they realised their Mammy had them down to marry Mairie's daughter from next door and doesn't she have the moustache on her, but is so devout.
Although how the feck that translated into blowing up children and war veterans is as much a puzzle as anything.
I once read a compelling paper that argued "72 virgins" was a mistranslation from the most original ancient texts, and that it was actually supposed to be "72 varieties of fruit."
A very good point, one that applies to the poetic sections of any given religious text.
Heh, I initially read "applies" as "apples".
Blessed are the cheesemakers!
Why do terrorists want 72 virgins anyway? I far prefer a mature woman who knows what she is doing.
Damifino why, or what it really means, just shorthand for a cause-zealot.
Is it possible to change your reward from 72 virgins to something like 72 flavors of ice cream?
My edition of the Koran doesn't promise 72 virgins, but there were a lot of nubile young boys in the afterlife.
My edition of the Koran doesn't promise 72 virgins, but there were a lot of nubile young boys in the afterlife.
Did that edition come wrapped in a plain brown burka?
Did that edition come wrapped in a plain brown burka?
It is the Penguin edition, so it's a little cold.
But it's all there in black and white.
It is the Penguin edition, so it's a little cold.
Does that mean Muhammad appears in a polar bear mascot outfit? And Tom Cruise comes out of the igloo?
"and another name for the bible is the gospel, so it has to be true." --Ricky Gervais
"and another name for the bible is the gospel, so it has to be true." --Ricky Gervais
Will Comedy Central also have to censor him?
Reader's Digest once did a series on Joe's body parts. How did they publish the chapter entitled "I am Joe's Penis". Oh. Back then everyone did not fear terrorists.
Will Comedy Central also have to censor him?
Reader's Digest once did a series on Joe's body parts. How did they publish the chapter entitled "I am Joe's Penis". Oh. Back then everyone did not fear terrorists.
Was 'I am Joe's Penis' the condensed version? :p: