Plane crashes into Tampa office tower

Nic Name • Jan 5, 2002 7:05 pm

A 15-year-old student pilot was at the controls of the plane when it took off from a Albert Whitted Municipal Airport in nearby St. Petersburg about 5 p.m., on Saturday, January 5, according to a spokesman for the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Department.

There were no immediate reports on casualties or injuries as a result of the crash.

It doesn't look good for the pilot.

russotto • Jan 5, 2002 10:17 pm

Waste of a good Cessna. I guess there needs to be a pre-test for student pilots, to make sure they can tell the difference between a building and clear airspace.

Though I have a dark suspicion this will turn out to have been a suicide.

Whit • Jan 6, 2002 12:33 am

     Isn't ironic that a kid that's not old enough to drive in most states was piloting an aircraft? He was probably trying to lose the helicopter and seriously misjudged the distance. After all, it always works in the movies. Hmm, maybe I should check to see if he's up for a Darwin...

ladysycamore • Jan 6, 2002 11:24 am

Originally posted by Whit
     Isn't ironic that a kid that's not old enough to drive in most states was piloting an aircraft? He was probably trying to lose the helicopter and seriously misjudged the distance. After all, it always works in the movies. Hmm, maybe I should check to see if he's up for a Darwin...

LOL, if not, he certainly needs to be. I mean, what was up with THAT? :eek: To top it off, there were 3 other reports of single engine planes crashing in various parts of the world...kinda spooky.

Aviation Safety Network

A great site to look up stats regarding plane crashes, near misses, and an archive of every incident that has happened since 1945.

MaggieL • Jan 6, 2002 11:32 am

Originally posted by Whit
Isn't ironic that a kid that's not old enough to drive in most states was piloting an aircraft? .

He wasn't old enough to solo an aircraft either; there's no minimum age for dual instruction. I've allowed one of my daughters to operate the controls---under ***close*** supervision of course---when she was 6 or 7. The biggest problem was that not only was she too short to see over the control panel, but too short to see over the windowsill....and she liked seeing the ground go by. So we spent a lot of time in steep left-hand turns. :-)

Then she found out how to apply positive and negative G forces....I had to take control back from her at that point....her capacity for it was higher than mine. :-)

Whit • Jan 6, 2002 1:37 pm

     My bad, a 15 year old can get a learning permit to drive with a licenced driver too...

     That's kids for you. Rough housing with mine I'll twist them into positions that would shatter my spine and tear my joints out of socket, and they'll laugh like crazy. Incredible.

Nic Name • Jan 6, 2002 6:14 pm

CNN reports:

A note written by the 15-year-old boy who crashed a Cessna into a Tampa office building Saturday indicated he supported Osama bin Laden and that the act was deliberate, authorities said Sunday.

The note, which was found in the wreckage of the plane, "clearly stated that he had acted alone, without any help from anyone else," Tampa Police Chief Bennie Holder said. "He did, however, make statements expressing his sympathy for Osama bin Laden and the events which occurred September 11, 2001."

Undoubtedly, it was no accident that the target building was the Bank of America Building.

In my opinion, this is an act of terrorism, even though the authorities are trying to characterize it as a "suicide" at this time.

Is the American government, or the public, able to cope with cases of domestic terrorism, at this time?

Would the characterization be different if the suicide pilot were middle eastern, even if acting alone?

juju2112 • Jan 6, 2002 7:57 pm

Ya know, it really bothers me when people use the word 'terrorism'. I'm not picking on you at all -- i've actually been thinking about this for quite some time. Just think of this little tirade as an intellectual foray. :)

The word "terrorism" seems like so much propaganda to me. The only thing is, I think i'm the only person the entire world that feels this way. So, maybe i'll just take this definition and analyse it a little bit.

Terrorism by nature is difficult to define. Acts of terrorism conjure emotional responses in the victims (those hurt by the violence and those affected by the fear) as well as in the practioners. Even the U.S. government cannot agree on one single definition. The old adage, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is still alive and well. Listed below are several definitions of terrorism. For the purposes of the Terrorism Research Center, we have adopted the definition used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The fact that no one can agree on a definition tells me that it doesn't really mean anything. When someone feels strongly about something, but can't define it, doesn't that tell you something? It is really best used when someone is trying to discredit someone. Why can't they just be called 'the enemy"?

Now, the part about, "invoking an emotional response" seems to be the most valid part of the definition to me. But ALL war evokes an emotional response in it's participants. Isn't that what war is? I'm not saying war is good -- war is terrible. But maybe the word 'war' has been desensitized enough that we feel the need to come up with a new word that sounds more evil.

Terrorism is the use or threatened use of force designed to bring about political change.

--Brian Jenkins

By this definintion, anyone who uses force on another government is a terrorist. So, America is a terrorist nation for fighting Russia? After all, we were using force to bring about political change. It's all a matter of perspective.

Terrorism consitutes the illegitimate use of force to achieve a political objective when innocent people are targeted.

--Walter Laqueur

Anyone who experiences force being used against them feels that that force is illegitimate, and also feels that they are innocent.

What exactly is this definition supposed to mean? People can't attack governments without being evil? Were the citizens of Argentina 'evil terrorists' for overthrowing their government? Are they immoral? Probably not. Why? Because they're not against the U.S. See how subject this is?

Terrorism is the premeditated, deliberate, systematic murder, mayhem, and threatening of the innocent to create fear and intimidation in order to gain a political or tactical advantage, usually to influence an audience.

--James M. Poland

This seems like the most fair definition to me, although I could add that anything that's premeditated is also deliberate. This does seem like a pretty good definition, although if I ran around calling everyone who fit this definition a terrorist, I would probably be laughed at.

Anyway, i'll skip the other definintions 'cause I want to spend time with my fiancee. So, um, this isn't a flame or anything -- it's just something that i've really been thinking about. Intelligent contradictions welcome!

Nic Name • Jan 6, 2002 8:50 pm

It also points towards a simpler - and perhaps more honest - definition: terrorism is violence committed by those we disapprove of.

Quoted from a pre 9/11 article in The Guardian, a British newspaper, commenting on American government report classifying terrorist groups.

Nic Name • Jan 7, 2002 2:00 am

According to the BBC:

Although a terror motive has been ruled out, Bishop was revealed to have been obsessed by the devastating suicide hijack attacks of 11 September and was carrying a suicide note "expressing sympathy" for Osama Bin Laden.

He "clearly stated he had acted alone without any help from anyone else," said Tampa Police Chief Bennie Holder.

Mr Holder said there was no evidence that Bishop was trying to harm anyone else.

The note and the refusal to respond to the Coast Guard Helicopter is evidence. And the act of flying a plane into an office building in the wake of 9/11 may be taken as evidence of intent of an individual with such a note on his person at the time. This was no accident. It was diliberate. It was premeditated. If the occupant of that office had been "going about his business" on Saturday, would it be murder/suicide, or suicide causing accidental death?

Questions are being asked about the risk of copy-cat terrorism. The terrorist attacks of September 11 exposed weaknesses in our systems to defend against similar attacks. The authorities must demonstrate that these weaknesses no longer exist.

According the the BBC:

Two US military F-15 fighter aircraft and a US Coast Guard helicopter were scrambled to intercept the Cessna 172R plane.

Concern was heightened when it flew into restricted airspace over the nearby MacDill Air Force Base - headquarters of the US Central Command in charge of the war in Afghanistan.

After a nine-minute flight, the plane flew into the 28th and 29th floors of the 42-storey Bank of America building, despite being intercepted by the helicopter.

The Director of Homeland Security should make it publicly clear that the next troubled individual that flies a plane without authority, and/or refuses to respond to military escort helicopters and fighter planes, will not be given the benefit of any doubt as to the intent of the rogue pilot and the danger that aircraft poses to civilians and our national security.

Or, are we only prepared to shoot down airliners?

lisa • Jan 7, 2002 2:39 am

Originally posted by Whit
     Isn't ironic that a kid that's not old enough to drive in most states was piloting an aircraft?

Nothing ironic about it at all. He was piloting the aircraft illegally. Most states have minimum age for drivers licenses at 16 -- the same minimum age to solo an aircraft.

And there have been cases where children at various ages from 5 - 14 have killed themselves in automobiles.

Personally, unless the FAA does something stupid to not allow me to do so, I plan on giving my daughter flying lessons as early as she wants them. I like the idea that she would have some clue what to do should I pass out at the controls someday. :)

ladysycamore • Jan 7, 2002 8:09 am

Originally posted by Nic Name
CNN reports:

A note written by the 15-year-old boy who crashed a Cessna into a Tampa office building Saturday indicated he supported Osama bin Laden and that the act was deliberate, authorities said Sunday. The note, which was found in the wreckage of the plane, "clearly stated that he had acted alone, without any help from anyone else," Tampa Police Chief Bennie Holder said. "He did, however, make statements expressing his sympathy for Osama bin Laden and the events which occurred September 11, 2001."

Undoubtedly, it was no accident that the target building was the Bank of America Building.

After learning that he had sympathetic feelings for bin Laden, I would agree with that statement. I keep hearing that he was so "troubled", but no one saw this coming. Too crazy...

In my opinion, this is an act of terrorism, even though the authorities are trying to characterize it as a "suicide" at this time.

Well, if I were to go by this definition:

Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1795
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

then I'm not sure if I'd call it terrorism. BUT, if one is to go by the link that you provided, then maybe...

Is the American government, or the public, able to cope with cases of domestic terrorism, at this time?

IMO, the American Gov't. and the public has never been able to cope with cases of domestic terrorism well. The KKK, Neo-Nazi skinheads and all of those idiots are TERRORISTS, and they continue to exist. Hell, for that matter, I'd consider corrupt police as terrorists: they CERTAINLY have used terror to coerce (racial profiling, pulling over women and then attacking and sexually assaulting them, etc.).

Would the characterization be different if the suicide pilot were middle eastern, even if acting alone?

You and I both know that it would. The pilot wouldn't have been "troubled", he would have been a sick bastard, dirty towelhead, ignorant sandn**gger, and so forth. And God forbid had the pilot been 'black': "There they go again. Them black folk are always doing something stupid". Trust me: I've heard that more times than I can count. And let's not forget about the immediate and deliberate profiling that would occur afterwards. In THIS situation however, that won't happen, because heaven forbid, whites can not be profiled in such a manner (Is anyone watching the future Timothy McVeighs in this country? I doubt that the watch is not as hard and as focused as the watch is on people of color). Welcome to America.
:rolleyes:

It'll be interesting to see what will come from all of this over time.

Nic Name • Jan 7, 2002 8:24 am

ladysycamore, I don't know who said this but, "Wazzn't me!"

IMO, the American Gov't. and the public has never been able to cope with cases of domestic terrorism well. The KKK, Neo-Nazi skinheads and all of those idiots are TERRORISTS, and they continue to exist. Hell, for that matter, I'd consider corrupt police as terrorists: they CERTAINLY have used terror to coerce (racial profiling, pulling over women and then attacking and sexually assaulting them, etc.).

dave • Jan 7, 2002 9:09 am

Originally posted by ladysycamore
[/i]dirty towelhead, ignorant sandn**gger, and so forth.

Ah, yes. The sandnooger. :)

jennofay • Jan 7, 2002 9:12 am

The terrorist attacks of September 11 exposed weaknesses in our systems to defend against similar attacks. The authorities must demonstrate that these weaknesses no longer exist.

thats why we need rubber, lots and lots of rubber. and cover every tall building with it. that way, if copy-cat attacks begin to happen, the planes will just bounce off :)

(sorry to joke for a moment, but the thought of this proved to be so amusing that ive been thinking about it for over twenty-four hours...:)...get a good mental picture of this, though... and now... chuckle... good.)

:)

dave • Jan 7, 2002 9:16 am

Originally posted by ladysycamore
[/i]In THIS situation however, that won't happen, because heaven forbid, whites can not be profiled in such a manner (Is anyone watching the future Timothy McVeighs in this country? I doubt that the watch is not as hard and as focused as the watch is on people of color). Welcome to America.

Well, the fact of the matter is, 8 of the last 9 people that flew planes into buildings were Arabs. If you want to count their entire force, we can bump it up to 19 out of 20 - I'm just counting the actual pilots here. So yeah, when they're looking for people to fly planes into buildings, I bet Arabs receive more attention.

Conversely, Eskimos are generally not suspects in insider trading criminal investigations. They just haven't had as much of a role in it as white guys have.

Blacks are looked at more closely for murders in Baltimore, because blacks kill more in Baltimore than whites do.

Whites are looked at more closely in serial murder cases, because whites are serial murderers more frequently than blacks are.

This doesn't happen because the police hate niggers or gooks; serial killers are not investigated by some cracker-hating Black Panther. These aren't stereotypes. It's just statistics.

Nic Name • Jan 7, 2002 10:17 am

We've seen photocopies of the "anthrax letters" so, why have we not seen the reported 6 page handwritten letter carried by the Bank of America Building "suicide" pilot, in which he mentions Osama and the attacks on the World Trade Centre. The actual words would allow the public to form a clearer picture of what happened here. Or, would that not be in the public interest? hmmm...

So far, all I've seen in the media is a couple of lines "paraphrasing" the letter by the police and authorities. Has the media asked for a copy of the letter, or a complete transcript? Has release of the complete transcript been refused? hmmm...

Nic Name • Jan 7, 2002 10:20 am

Uh oh ... it seems from a report on CNN tv that this troubled youth may have been of Arab descent, on his estranged father's side ... (The investigation is ongoing.) hmmm ...

elSicomoro • Jan 7, 2002 10:48 am

Originally posted by dhamsaic
Eskimos are generally not suspects in insider trading criminal investigations. They just haven't had as much of a role in it as white guys have.

Yeah, but you can't trust Inuits for anything. ;)

I don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying. After what happened on 9/11, the first thing that came out of the mouths of people around me was "those fucking Arabs." However, I would say those examples are also forms of racial or ethnic profiling. If these rationales were strictly employed, I believe we would run the risk of creating new stereotypes, continuing current stereotypes, and indulging people in their self-fulfilling prophecies. I suspect the rationales are used already in some instances.

ladysycamore • Jan 9, 2002 7:41 pm

Originally posted by dhamsaic

Well, the fact of the matter is, 8 of the last 9 people that flew planes into buildings were Arabs. If you want to count their entire force, we can bump it up to 19 out of 20 - I'm just counting the actual pilots here. So yeah, when they're looking for people to fly planes into buildings, I bet Arabs receive more attention.

Sure, I agree, but I would think that that would just leave the "door wide open" for other Non-arabs to do something crazy. And then, when they do (because you know they will), then the public will have another hissy fit, talking about, "What happened??"

Conversely, Eskimos are generally not suspects in insider trading criminal investigations. They just haven't had as much of a role in it as white guys have.

I've learned to not put anything past anybody. Anything's possible, even from those pesky Eskimos. (grin)

Blacks are looked at more closely for murders in Baltimore, because blacks kill more in Baltimore than whites do.

Ok, so does that make it "right" when an innocent black male is pulled over because blacks are looked at more closely? In the meantime, his white counterpart is committing a crime elsewhere, and getting away with it (more than likely).

Whites are looked at more closely in serial murder cases, because whites are serial murderers more frequently than blacks are.

And the reverse of what I said previously could be stated here as well. After all, the infamous Altanta child murders: committed by a black man. No one would have "thunk" it...but it was never out of the realm of possibility.

This doesn't happen because the police hate niggers or gooks;

Mmm...well, I don't believe that completely...

serial killers are not investigated by some cracker-hating Black Panther. These aren't stereotypes. It's just statistics.

Well, the only thing that I can say to that is that I'm coming from a POV of one that HAS been profiled (in other words, looked at more closely while shopping, aka "shopping while black"), and I can tell you that it sucks the biggest you-know-what. I've been tailed in certain retail stores, and it's highly annoying. I'm there to spend my hard earned dollars, not to get sticky fingers. In the meantime, while the clerks are so busy wondering when I'll snatch something off of the rack and run, that white gal that came in after me has already made her move, and she's in and out with her five finger discount (I've seen this happen).

Statistics be damned: Profiling is just plain wrong, IMO. There are too many people who have personal biases against certain cultures here in America. And now, the state of New Jersey has voted to not make racial profiling a crime. Ah, I see: and the hits (sometimes, literally) keep coming.:mad:

dave • Jan 9, 2002 10:09 pm

I agree with you on the fact that profiling is wrong. But it's a fact of life, no matter how irritating it is.

Being a young professional with hair that's probably nearing 3 feet long, a demeanor that dictates that I don't tuck my shirt in (read: "look like a slob"), a good little bit of facial hair and a habit of spending some of the money I make (read: going into stores a lot), I've been tailed numerous times. Why? 'Cause of the way I look. Young dudes with long hair are more mistrusted, apparently, 'cause I am treated lik e a criminal at the store. People follow me around, come keep a close eye on me, just sit and stare as I shop, etc. No doubt, some of them are thinking "We'll catch this dirtbag doing something."

Then there's the whole drug thing - everyone assumes that, because of said traits listed above (save for the fact that I spend the money I make), people assume I'm a druggie. I tell 'em "Nope. Never in my fucking life" they say "I don't believe that." Well fucking believe it, you mongrel idiot (no, not YOU! :)). Apparently every male with long hair, some whiskers on his face and an untucked shirt smokes a lot of pot, when, in my case, nothing could be farther from the truth. I was shot in the eye when I was 14 - my right eye is still red from it. I have been asked, on more than one occasion - "Hey man, you stoned or what?" - and they don't believe me when I say "No."

Unfortunately for me, younger kids shoplift more frequently than Eskimos do (or businessmen, or Data Entry Specialists, or Systems Engineers, of which I am one). And, unfortunately for me, younger people are generally thought to have a higher drug-usage rate (though I am ignorant of actual statistics pitting teenage use vs. young adult or middle age use). Statistically, I'm more likely to fit into these groups than the old lady in Electronics looking for a GameCube for her grandson. Statistics.

You can do a little something about it, though: if you know you're being tailed by someone, approach them. Tell them, very politely, "I'd like to speak to your manager right now." When the manager gets out there, tell them "Look, I've been a customer of your store for quite some time, and I really do enjoy shopping here. However, if you continue treating me like a criminal, I'll be forced to take my business elsewhere." Make sure to mention that you do not steal, have not stolen, and will not steal from their store. If they continue giving you shit, go elsewhere - they're not worth doing business with.

Anyway. I know it sucks, but there isn't much we can do about it. Statistics happen to work against us in these cases - not for us.

ladysycamore • Jan 11, 2002 7:09 am

Originally posted by dhamsaic
I agree with you on the fact that profiling is wrong.
Being a young professional with hair that's probably nearing 3 feet long, a demeanor that dictates that I don't tuck my shirt in (read: "look like a slob"), a good little bit of facial hair and a habit of spending some of the money I make (read: going into stores a lot), I've been tailed numerous times. Why? 'Cause of the way I look. Young dudes with long hair are more mistrusted, apparently, 'cause I am treated lik e a criminal at the store. People follow me around, come keep a close eye on me, just sit and stare as I shop, etc. No doubt, some of them are thinking "We'll catch this dirtbag doing something."
Then there's the whole drug thing - everyone assumes that, because of said traits listed above (save for the fact that I spend the money I make), people assume I'm a druggie. I tell 'em "Nope. Never in my fucking life" they say "I don't believe that." Well fucking believe it, you mongrel idiot (no, not YOU! :)). Apparently every male with long hair, some whiskers on his face and an untucked shirt smokes a lot of pot, when, in my case, nothing could be farther from the truth. I was shot in the eye when I was 14 - my right eye is still red from it. I have been asked, on more than one occasion - "Hey man, you stoned or what?" - and they don't believe me when I say "No."

Ok, I understand, and I have seen that happen with young white males with long hair, and that "criminal" look, for a lack of a better phrase. However, one can change a "look"...I can not change my color. I remember watching a report about an experiement that was done in a store in Dallas (if I recall correctly). This experiment was recorded on tape. Two men, one white and one black, entered the store. Now, bear in mind this is a "high-end" men's clothing store, and both men were wearing suits. Both men were approached by the sales clerks. They both declined help, said they were just browsing for the moment, and went on about their business. It was shown that the black man was being tailed more closely than the white man. Why am I not suprised? It didn't matter that the black man was "clean cut" and well dressed: he was going to be profiled REGARDLESS.

Unfortunately for me, younger kids shoplift more frequently than Eskimos do (or businessmen, or Data Entry Specialists, or Systems Engineers, of which I am one). And, unfortunately for me, younger people are generally thought to have a higher drug-usage rate (though I am ignorant of actual statistics pitting teenage use vs. young adult or middle age use). Statistically, I'm more likely to fit into these groups than the old lady in Electronics looking for a GameCube for her grandson. Statistics.

I can't wait for the day that that old lady in Electronics actually lifts that GameCube for her grandson, and trust me: it WILL happen. Possibility.

You can do a little something about it, though: if you know you're being tailed by someone, approach them. Tell them, very politely, "I'd like to speak to your manager right now." When the manager gets out there, tell them "Look, I've been a customer of your store for quite some time, and I really do enjoy shopping here. However, if you continue treating me like a criminal, I'll be forced to take my business elsewhere." Make sure to mention that you do not steal, have not stolen, and will not steal from their store. If they continue giving you shit, go elsewhere - they're not worth doing business with.

Hrm...nice idea in theory. Remember: If I am being treated like a common criminal because I am black, they are not going to care if I take my business elsewhere. One less so-and-so in their store to profile.

Anyway. I know it sucks, but there isn't much we can do about it. Statistics happen to work against us in these cases - not for us.

dham: I understand and respect your opinion on this matter. But, I can not agree with the term "us". Statistics will always work against ME. If you say that you are profiled because of age and looks, well, you'll eventually grow older, and perhaps change your look. However, I will ALWAYS be black, no matter the age or look, and therefore, will ALWAYS be profiled to some extent.

dave • Jan 11, 2002 11:33 am

I know I can change my look. But view it this way:

Being black (african american? which do you prefer?) is a part of you. It just is. Your skin color is a part of you.

My long hair is a part of me.

I can change it, but I won't. It's just as much a part of me as anything else is, and it always will be. Sure, I bet I'll get it cut some day - but for now, it's a very defining characteristic. That's not something I'm willing to give up, even if I can.

As for the study in Texas - what do you expect in Texas? :)

It seriously is very disappointing though, and I'm sorry that it's one of those things you have to go through. I seriously would recommend talking to a manager though - what matters to them is MONEY (that's why they're watching you in the first place, right? They're afraid you might steal something, depriving them of revenue). If you mention that you spend lots of money there, and will cease to do so if they continue treating you like a criminal, there is a chance they'll listen.

And if not, you could always get me and sycamore to hand out a beat down. :)

Undertoad • Jan 11, 2002 11:38 am

While you two bicker over who is the worse-off victim, one of the secrets to life (I think) is that you cannot possibly be a victim unless you allow yourself to FEEL victimized.

People can treat you all kinds of ways, but they cannot control your thoughts.

Yesterday I read an account of this Afghani dude who was tortured to within an inch of his life by the Taliban because they wanted him to confess to spreading Christianity.

You guys think you're victims? Bad eye, skin color not in the majority? Cops give you the twice-over, people follow you in stores? Please. You should read this dude's story. Nearly electrocuted until he was only able to crawl to go to the bathroom which consisted of a bucket in another cell. Left with brain damage, practically unable to move some of his limbs. Not for some dumb reason like appearance: no, it was for no reason at all. But this guy, somehow somewhere, picked up some way of thinking about his situation where he is able to get past it. Why can't we do the same?

I believe our culture is messing with us when it tells us that we should care about what other people think about us. It is a very strange notion indeed. I wonder how it came to be.

dave • Jan 11, 2002 11:43 am

I've read it. And I agree.

But I think you're kind of missing my point, and that is, it's just kind of the way it is. People are going to get looked at funny for a number of reasons, and we just need to live with it. I don't feel victimized - it's annoying, surely, but I know I have it pretty good. I think the point I was trying to make is that "discrimination" happens for a reason. So :PPPPPPPPPPPPP to you. :)

As for your parting comment - I care what some people think of me. Namely, Jenni, Megan, Andrea, Jen. Other than that, I'm pretty apathetic to others' "concerns" or feelings. And I don't change myself for whatever reason - I'm just fortunate enough to have friends that accept me for who I am and manage to put up with me. :)

tw • Jan 11, 2002 8:45 pm

You're all dancing around, but ignoring the important point. Is it profiling based upon logical facts or just profiling based upon human bias? Do dishevled kids with 3 foot long hair commit more crimes? That is the statistic that a 'profiler' must possess to perform profiling.

Again, it goes right back to a fundamental thread - do we make decisions based upon facts or based upon personal bias - first impressions - better known as racism.

The employee is only as effective as his managers. Did they provide the employee with the necessary facts, statistical studies, and other necessary information to perform profiling? If not, then why were they so negligent. Profiling without the facts is simply another form of racism. Where are the numbers? What are the facts? Only then can a profiler profile.

jaguar • Jan 11, 2002 9:11 pm

Jsut to join in the victimfest try being under 18. First of all ignorant adults don't take you seriosuly becaue they refuse to realsie that you may have opinions as valid as thiers ;). But seriously, if i had a penny for every time i've been served after a businessmen even though i ordered first...grrrr....Paying with large notes, generous tips or paying by credit card seem to fix it instantly but.....The point is that people can disrciminate (and do) on anyhting, age, race, sex, religion, political views, you are only a victim if you want to be. The logic that says more blacks shoplift than whites (random gues/exmaple) is no justification for following every black person that enters the store. Personally? Fight back, for instance, take something off the shelf, then put it in your pocket, then pay for it at the counter, piss em off ;)
Or pay for $5 cafe bill of a $100 note. Best one is resteraunts - i'm not sure what american law is like but you can demand to inspect the kitechns at any time as a customer, give it a shot, most reseraunters know the drill - they can't stop you unless you interfere with cooking. If you see thinks like cracked plates you can report them to the relavent authorities for having unhygenic kitchens forcing them to undergo a through inspection, a time consuming and occasionally expenisve operation. (just don't do it if you want to eat there again ;) )

dave • Jan 11, 2002 9:44 pm

Originally posted by jaguar
Jsut to join in the victimfest try being under 18. First of all ignorant adults don't take you seriosuly becaue they refuse to realsie that you may have opinions as valid as thiers

*cough*

*cough cough*

*cough cough cough cough cough cough cough cough cough cough cough cough cough*

*cough*

jaguar • Jan 11, 2002 10:44 pm

My, my, my, what are you implying? My good fellow i hope you aren't suggesting that i was refering to conversation or person in particular, i would take great offence at such a baseless and insulting accusation! I never imply anything, i prefer simple straighforward language rather than exploit the idiosyncrasies of english to obscufate some hidden quiddity in my words. I hope you get better soon, that looks like a terrible cough indeed.

Nic Name • Jan 11, 2002 10:59 pm

i prefer simple straighforward language rather than exploit the idiosyncrasies of english to obscufate some hidden quiddity in my words.

Such an erudite young man, Jaggy prefers intentionally to obfuscate his meaning with spelling errors. I luv it. :)

MaggieL • Jan 11, 2002 11:45 pm

Originally posted by jaguar
Jsut to join in the victimfest try being under 18

OK, everybody on the Cellar who's never been under 18, raise your hands. Some of us have more experience at being under 18 than others, of course, but those of us who don't die early all ultimately achieve the same quota. Unless we're able to pass for older than we are, of course.

"VIctimfest" indeed. Tony's point about self-defined victimhood is on-point; there's a substantial "cult of the victim" in some political circles. After a while it gets old (if you'll pardon the expression) to those that aren't playing the game, especially when it's used as an argument for compensatory special privileges..

dham's talk about elments of your identity being an indelible part of that identity is bang-on as well. I'm thinking of Stan's dog "Sparky" (played by George Clooney) on South Park--("Sit up, Sparky. Beg, Sparky. Don't be gay, Sparky".)

You suppress or disguise parts of your identity to please or mollify others at your peril. And I suspect that the only solution to cops who watch black/arab/female/queer people more closely may be having more black/arab/female/queer cops.

Actually, I suppose getting all four in one should be some kind of triple-word-score. But finding a cop with no personal biases will be quite a trick.

jaguar • Jan 12, 2002 12:18 am

smartarseism aside, two clear differnces are, particualry in some cases people haven't been under 18 for a long time, and times do change. Seondly, i doubt kids had the same kind of disposeable incomes kids have today (in some cases) which illustrates the gap perfectly, if these people working in these places did realise that, they would (and when they do, do) serve you like any other customer.

Actually, I suppose getting all four in one should be some kind of triple-word-score. But finding a cop with no persinal biases will be quite a trick.

Doesn't mean it has to come out on the job, i thought that is what being professional about in these jobs was about. btw its personal not persinal, i thought nic would have pointed that out.

MaggieL • Jan 12, 2002 12:59 am

Originally posted by jaguar
smartarseism aside, two clear differnces are, particualry in some cases people haven't been under 18 for a long time, and times do change. Seondly, i doubt kids had the same kind of disposeable incomes kids have today (in some cases) which illustrates the gap perfectly...

So you're saying it's uniquely difficult to be under 18 now? Seems to me I heard that one when I was under 18. :-) It's always something....either the clerk won't take your money as fast as you want him too, or you're subject to being drafted and having your ass shot off in some foriegn war. We had to walk to school in the snow every day, too....uphill....both ways. :-)

I wonder if it's really true that folks under 18 have more disposable income today than they did, say, twenty or thirty years ago, if we adjust for inflation. Of course it's another question if this would entitle them to better treatment in retail establishments. When I worked in retail, I got a lot more hassles from shoppers who were under 18. Of course, *I* was under 18 at the time too.

I fixed the spelling error, probably before nic even saw it.

Nic Name • Jan 12, 2002 1:03 am

Correct me if I'm wrong ... but isn't the draft an "over 18" issue?

Are we digressing here, or are we getting back to the thread and some connection with the "troubled kid" who flew into the Bank of America Building?

Are there two threats to our security, foreign terrorists and troubled teenagers? Is John Walker a foreign terrorist or a troubled young man? Let's check his ethnicity and see which he might be. Was Timothy McVeigh a terrorist? I think so. Yet, he was always called the Oklahoma City bomber.

jaguar • Jan 12, 2002 1:38 am

Are there two threats to our security, foreign terrorists and troubled teenagers?

Colombine?

So you're saying it's uniquely difficult to be under 18 now?

God no, probably easier than ever but i do say kids (least round here) do have some serious disposeable income, a signifigant aprt of that no doubt is the people i know but..

Of course it's another question if this would entitle them to better treatment in retail establishments.

Better? No, equal yes, if you're spending as much as the guy who's 20 years older than you next to you, its in the businesses interst to treat you equally, you are of equal value.

My point was merely pointing out another form or basis for discrimination, lets leave it at that?

MaggieL • Jan 12, 2002 10:19 am

Originally posted by Nic Name
Correct me if I'm wrong ... but isn't the draft an "over 18" issue?

Only if you waited until then to worry about it. Once you turned 18 when the draft was active, it was too late...

ladysycamore • Jan 12, 2002 11:55 am

Originally posted by Nic Name

Are we digressing here, or are we getting back to the thread and some connection with the "troubled kid" who flew into the Bank of America Building?

THANK YOU!

Are there two threats to our security, foreign terrorists and troubled teenagers?

More than two threats I'm afraid. No one should be above or beyond reproach, IMO. Certainly, no one should be singled out, while others are allowed to walk away.

Is John Walker a foreign terrorist or a troubled young man? Let's check his ethnicity and see which he might be.

Exactly.

Was Timothy McVeigh a terrorist? I think so. Yet, he was always called the Oklahoma City bomber.

Oh, but he was a member of the armed services: he could possibly be a threat to national security. He was just..."troubled". How about we just single out that Arab or Sikh Indian instead? It's MUCH easier, donchaknow. ;)

ladysycamore • Jan 12, 2002 12:15 pm

Originally posted by Nic Name
We've seen photocopies of the "anthrax letters" so, why have we not seen the reported 6 page handwritten letter carried by the Bank of America Building "suicide" pilot, in which he mentions Osama and the attacks on the World Trade Centre. The actual words would allow the public to form a clearer picture of what happened here. Or, would that not be in the public interest? hmmm...

I agree with you on that one. But, as I'm sure you know, it doesn't make for "good copy" to make such "demands" on our government, law enforcement, and other units of authority. You'd be a "troublemaker" and "unpatriotic". Heaven forbid that you merely ask for more information about this issue. ;-)

So far, all I've seen in the media is a couple of lines "paraphrasing" the letter by the police and authorities. Has the media asked for a copy of the letter, or a complete transcript? Has release of the complete transcript been refused? hmmm...

Hmm, indeed. That will more than likely be a mystery for a while. However, had it been one of those "dirty Arab/Muslims"...well...

dave • Jan 12, 2002 12:50 pm

Originally posted by ladysycamore
Oh, but he was a member of the armed services: he could possibly be a threat to national security. He was just..."troubled". How about we just single out that Arab or Sikh Indian instead? It's MUCH easier, donchaknow. ;)

NO.

He was REPEATEDLY called a terrorist. The Oklahoma City Bombing has been called, by even major news outlets, "the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil" - but the last day anyone ever said that was September 10th.

You're twisting facts here to add to your argument - that's called "spin", and that's okay. The problem is that they're not really facts. McVeigh has been called a terrorist. He was a terrorist. He used terror to get his message across. No one ever said he wasn't.

Nic Name • Jan 12, 2002 1:09 pm

I think that one of the aspects of the definition of terrorism is the intention to have the act of violence felt as a threat to the security of persons other than the direct victims of the assault.

In that definition would be included any number of middle eastern terrorist organizations, as well as terrorists acting alone or in small groups: McVeigh, Bishop, Columbine's Trench Coat Mafia and copy-cat mafias, the Unibomber, the anthrax mailer and others.

The official American government rhetoric of the war on terrorism has been refined " to root out foreign terrorists with international reach" in order to narrow the war on terrorism and, by definition, exempt from the current "war" such terrorists as McVeigh, the IRA and Arafat from the definition.

Of course, other countries, allies in the war on terrorism, accepting the current Amercian government's definition of terrorism may have a different view of "foreign" and "international reach" don't they?

elSicomoro • Jan 12, 2002 1:22 pm

Originally posted by dhamsaic
He was REPEATEDLY called a terrorist. The Oklahoma City Bombing has been called, by even major news outlets, "the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil" - but the last day anyone ever said that was September 10th.

As time went on, he was called a terrorist. Initially, he was merely called the "Oklahoma City Bomber," at least from my personal recollections. I remember some people using the word "terrorist," but I don't remember it being as widespread until recently...before 9/11 of course. Was he a terrorist? Certainly, at least IMO.

Do you think all those militias that were behind the 8-ball after OK City are building their machine up again, b/c of 9/11?

*watching a History Channel show on the KKK*

Rho just brought up an interesting point. I understand that we are trying to fight terrorism internationally, but if we are in a "War on Terrorism," could the Klan be considered part of that war? Should they be?

dave • Jan 12, 2002 1:26 pm

Fortunately, the Klan has toned down their, uh, "message". I think they're all worthless pieces of shit - of that, there is no doubt. However, if they're not really "terrifying" anymore, I don't know if we can consider them "terrorists". Maybe we could just deport them to Africa or something?

MaggieL • Jan 12, 2002 2:35 pm

Originally posted by ladysycamore

Hmm, indeed. That will more than likely be a mystery for a while. However, had it been one of those "dirty Arab/Muslims"...well...

I think we're quite likely to see the letter eventually...sooner if it's in the hands of the NTSB, later if the Tampa cops have it, where somebody may try to seal the record because Bishop was a juvenile. Certainly NTSB should end up with a copy, since as an aircraft incident it's their baliwick. It will probably be FOIAed from them if they don't release it. Most evidence NTSB deal with eventually is released, including CVR recordings right up to the point of impact. However, they haven't released the ground tapes they have of UA93.

It would appear that one thing Bishop was quite "troubled" about was *being* a "dirty Arab". His dad's birth name was evidently "BIshara", and converations he had with a teacher after 9/11 suggest he was feeling terrible conflict about his Dad's ethnicity.

elSicomoro • Jan 12, 2002 2:40 pm

Originally posted by dhamsaic
Fortunately, the Klan has toned down their, uh, "message". I think they're all worthless pieces of shit - of that, there is no doubt. However, if they're not really "terrifying" anymore, I don't know if we can consider them "terrorists". Maybe we could just deport them to Africa or something?

True, they have tried to "mainstream" themselves. They tried to support a show on my university's radio station (an NPR station)...and lost in court. UM-St. Louis's argument: To have a group such as the Klan supporting a program on a radio station run by the school (therefore, by the state) could drive away minority students. Made sense to me...race relations weren't exactly the greatest on our campus as it was.

They also adopted a stretch of Interstate 55 in South St. Louis County. They won this case in court. Their sign has been torn down several times, to the point that St. Louis County Police had to start watching it. Someone was finally caught tearing it down one night. The man made no apologies for doing it though.

This statement from a Klan site almost makes them sound like decent people...ALMOST.

[edit]

Whoops...that went more off-topic than it was already going. My actual point was that we definitely need to look within our own borders for terrorist groups. We've already beem looking for terrorists within our borders, but the main focus has been on "foreign" terrorists. Given the Klan's past activities, I don't think it would be unfair to give them a look-over. For now, I am satisfied with Matt Hale not being admitted to the Illinois bar. :)

I wish we had more info regarding Walker and Bishop. The fact that Walker was fighting with the Taliban damn near seals his fate...fighting for a regime that denied people of their basic rights. But the info that I've heard on Bishop is contradictory at best. Was he truly a terrorist sympathizer, or disturbed beyond belief?

Whit • Jan 12, 2002 3:43 pm

     I've been gone for awhile so let me catch up a bit. The first time I heard the term 'Domestic Terrorism' was before they had arested McVeigh. The guy that was my boss at the time had a sister-in-law in the building when it happened. I remeber clearly speaking with him about it and the words 'terrorist attack' was reapeted constantly. Not a month down the road, the next day. Of course if you remember it was originally reported that the people believed responsible were 'three men of arab decent'. So you could argue that was the reason for it...

     Next subject, the KKK has not exactly toned down. What they've done is grown smarter. They still work hard at recruitment, but they recognise their message is unpopular right now. So, instead of being the big bad nasty death squad of the past they pretend to be civic minded activists. What's worse is they don't think it's an act. They've been taught to speak more intelligently, so their message sounds more reasonable. They've helped set-up more (by the current standards) extreme white supremisist groups. Who then condem them for not being tough enough. Again making them sound less insane. This scare's me. I want my lunatics acting insane, they're easier to spot that way. This has been going on for awhile now. I remember about a decade ago when they set up shop in north west Arkansas a black guy I worked with said they had asked all the african-americans in the area to a big picnic to show how much they had changed. (He didn't go) The fact that he wouldn't back down doesn't mean that he wasn't scared.

     As far as the kid goes, my original opinion is largely unchanged. The big difference is that I don't think he should get a Darwin award, he offed himself on purpose, suicides are automaticaly excluded. Heck, I'd love to hear some jokes on this. Of the "What's the last thing that goes through a bugs mind when he hit's a windshield going 60 mph?" variety. He wanted to kill. In my book you lose all consideration given to a victim when that person person seeks to victimize others. I actually chuckled when I found out he was seeking to do real damage and instead wound up doing almost nothing. He was confused? Tough shit. I know people who have been through much worse and they never killed anyone over it. I have no sympthy for him.

Nic Name • Jan 12, 2002 4:57 pm

I agree with everything in Whit's post.

Furthermore, Bishop is no less a terrorist because, in the result, he was less effective and only killed himself. And he's a terrorist whether he acted alone, or not.

If Bishop had crashed his plane into MacDill AFB, he'd be on par with the attackers on the Pentagon. If he had crashed his plane into either the Delta or Southwest airliners in the vicinity, he would have caused much more death and disruption of the airline industry, generally on par with the Pennsylvania crash.

I think Bishop chose to be a terrorist. Surely he was misguided or self-deluded. I think Bishop sought infamy by targetting the Bank of America Building because his perception was that the attacks on the WTC were where all the notoriety was focused by the media.

I don't think Bishop's attack should be viewed as a suicide, at all. There is no indication that he was suicidal, that he wanted to end his life. Quite the contrary. The Al Qaeda hijackers were not committing suicide. Their deaths were necessarily incidental to their acts. In their minds martyrdom, sacrifice not suicide. So too, Bishop. He didn't want to die. He wanted to make a statement. Living through the event was not important. Sacrificing one's life is believed by martyrs to add emphasis to their statements ... but death was not his objective.

Terrorism was. I think Bishop wanted to join in the terrorism, if not join with the terrorists. I think he might also have been confused about his middle eastern ancestry. I suspect the evidence is in the note ... and that's why we are not seeing it. In the famous line from A Few Good Men, a movie about Gitmo, the government believes, you can't handle the truth.

elSicomoro • Jan 12, 2002 5:06 pm

Originally posted by Whit
Of course if you remember it was originally reported that the people believed responsible were 'three men of arab decent'. So you could argue that was the reason for it...

I do recall the media referring to the bombing as "domestic terrorism," but as far as McVeigh, I don't recall them referring to him as a "terrorist" until maybe the past couple of years, if that.

*recalls watching CNN after coming back from class the morning of the bombing...in a matter of hours, CNN had a title for the attack already--Terror in the Heartland*

Nic Name • Jan 12, 2002 5:15 pm

MaggieL • Jan 12, 2002 5:28 pm

Originally posted by Nic Name
I agree with everything in Whit's post....
I don't think Bishop's attack should be viewed as a suicide, at all.

There's a pretty severe contradiction here, since Whit said it was a suicide.

There is no indication that he was suicidal, that he wanted to end his life.

Um....other than flying an airplane directly into a building.

My own belief at the moment is that Bishop was already emotionally distressed--being an adolescent male can be a very rough ride. When 9/11 hit the fan he was unable to cope with a conflict he perceived between having some arab ethnicity and wanting to be an All-American boy, grow up and join the AIr Force. While his chosen manner of death may have had a symbolic value that he felt linked him to his absent father, I don't see any evidence that he was trying seriously to kill people anyone other than himself. I doubt he looked much further than this being the final act in his own personal melodrama.

In this sense it's rather similar to the Columbine mess, which at least had a much stronger indication that "terror" was an objective.If either tragedy had a genuine political motivation, that message was so poorly conveyed as to pretty much be lost.

I don't see either of these incidents as rising to what we ordinarily consider as "terrorism".

Nic Name • Jan 12, 2002 5:47 pm

Whit actually said ... As far as the kid goes, my original opinion is largely unchanged. The big difference is that I don't think he should get a Darwin award, he offed himself on purpose, suicides are automaticaly excluded. Heck, I'd love to hear some jokes on this. Of the "What's the last thing that goes through a bugs mind when he hit's a windshield going 60 mph?" variety. He wanted to kill. In my book you lose all consideration given to a victim when that person person seeks to victimize others. I actually chuckled when I found out he was seeking to do real damage and instead wound up doing almost nothing. He was confused? Tough shit. I know people who have been through much worse and they never killed anyone over it. I have no sympthy for him.

I thought that Whit was saying that Bishop shouldn't get a Darwin because his death wasn't accidental stupidity. It is in that sense that Whit called it a suicide. Further in the post Whit says that Bishop wanted to kill and sought to victimize others. So I don't think there is as great a contradiction in saying I agree with what Whit said. I would agree that Bishop's death is more of a suicide than an accident, but I don't think that the clues to why it happened are found in the analysis of suicide, per se.

I think there is a big difference between saying he wanted to end his life, and being prepared to end his life to achieve a result or make a statement. He made a statement ... let's read it. In the same way, the Al Qaeda hijackers were not suicidal but prepared to sacrifice their lives to achieve a result. One cannot argue that the fact that they piloted planes into the WTC is proof that they were suicidal.

I would add, that the one point in Whit's post that I didn't agree with, is that this is a subject to joke about. I don't share that opinion.

Maggie said ... that message was so poorly conveyed as to pretty much be lost.

I suspect the message was clearly conveyed in the note ... and that it has been obscured for political reasons, as I've stated.

MaggieL • Jan 12, 2002 11:59 pm

Originally posted by Nic Name

I suspect the message was clearly conveyed in the note ... and that it has been obscured for political reasons, as I've stated.

Considering the note was found in Bishop's pocket after the crash, he didn't pick a very effective way of publishing it. He did have a computer, and *could* have arranged for it to publish online after a delay. Simply putting it on a Geocities page with his name in it would probably be good enough; after the incident it would be certain to be found by the press. Maybe he just didn't think of that. He certainly ran a big risk that the note would *never* be found, if there had been a post-crash fire.

But I doubt that the reason we haven't seen the note is political, although of course I may be wrong. Typically there's a significant delay (as there was with the Daschle letters) before evidence like this is published in toto, waiting until it's nearly *certain* that the publication won't close any investigative doors forever...situations like that "how did you know the murder was comitted by stabbing? That was not in any published report!" twist in murder mysteries.

But if significant time gores by and we still haven't seen the note, even my suspicions will be aroused as to why. But we're not there yet.

Whit • Jan 13, 2002 1:39 am

     For the record I didn't mean to sugest that this idiot kid was in any way killing himself out of depresion or anthing else that is usually associated with suicide. He died to send a message. Only for the reason of passing curiosity do I care to hear it.

     Which brings up something else, I intend to make fun of that message. Nic said he didn't think this was something to joke about, I disagree for a couple of reasons.
1 For starters killing yourself to make a point is just plain silly. Just like hurting your foot kicking your car when it breaks down. It hurts you (well unless you die really quick) and does nothing to improve your situation personally. I can't remeber which general it was (Patton maybe?) that said, "Don't die for your country, live for it. The trick is getting the other guy to die for his." I think that's badly misquoted but you get the picture. Anyone rember the correct quote?
2 This guy wanted to be taken seriously. That's reason enough. Just on principle I try not to give violent idiots or killers (or in this case would-be killer) anything they want. He tried to kill people that had done nothing to him personally because he was freakin' confused... So, I laugh at him. I hope the next guy like him hears me.
3 It kills the glamour of it. I know how stupid that sounds, hear me out. Right now there are kids out there dumb enough to think this was cool. I don't know any but I'm pretty sure they exist. If they hear a bunch of jokes about it they are far less likely to follow suit.

     Oh well, have fun. See you in a couple of days.

dave • Jan 13, 2002 1:04 pm

something to the effect of "Nobody ever won a war by dying for their country. They won it by making the other poor bastard die for his." - and it was indeed Patton.

MaggieL • Jan 13, 2002 1:34 pm

Originally posted by Whit
For the record I didn't mean to sugest that this idiot kid was in any way killing himself out of depresion or anthing else that is usually associated with suicide.

OK...I stand corrected on that point.

Interesting fragment from the AP wire:

The two teenagers used to message each other by computer almost every day. But Favreau, 15, said his friend had recently seemed to brush him off, ignoring his messages.
Favreau also said that in spite of the note found in Bishop's pocket, the teenage pilot "hated bin Laden."
He said Bishop had expressed sympathy for the victims of the September 11 attacks in a class paper.
"I think he wrote the note to get publicity so people would know who he was when he died," Favreau said. "And they do."

BrianR • Jan 14, 2002 3:22 pm

The teenage pilot's actions are being blamed on his acne medicine.

There you have it.

Brian

Nic Name • Jan 14, 2002 3:32 pm

i wonder about the logic of the studies that show a common symptom of that medicine is depression ... isn't depression a common symptom of the acne?

jaguar • Jan 14, 2002 7:00 pm

BriaR i assume you were refering to this?

MaggieL • Jan 14, 2002 10:35 pm

Originally posted by Nic Name
i wonder about the logic of the studies that show a common symptom of that medicine is depression ... isn't depression a common symptom of the acne?

Actually, they're both symptoms of adolescence.

jaguar • Jan 15, 2002 12:23 am

*laughz
too true

BrianR • Jan 15, 2002 12:27 pm

Actually, Jag. I was more referring to the following link

http://inq.philly.com/content/inquirer/2002/01/10/opinion/ramsland10.htm

It mentions the teenagers taking Accutane, a prescription acne medication
that has been linked to depression and suicide in some studies.

There is more on the Florida Times Union website archives.

Brian

dave • Jan 15, 2002 12:32 pm

I'd need to see some pretty convincing evidence before believing that the medicine was responsible for suicides. Before one can determine the effect of X on Y, one must observe Y in the absence of X. That means that we need to know exactly how that person would have reacted without taking that medicine. There are too many variables - how the kid is treated at school, how he is treated at home, if he feels alone, if he thinks he'll ever be able to find happiness, etc. These things may or may not be influenced by the acne and its medication. It's too early to blame it on the medicine though, I think. Studies have shown that kids on that medication have a higher suicide rate - ooookay, but do they show that kids who would normally be prescribed that medication but were not, or kids that were prescribed the medication but fail to take it, have a "normal" suicide rate? What if his acne lead to poor reception from females, thus leading to his depression? Could this not be the case with a number of the suicides? Maybe with all of them? How can we be certain? I don't think that we can without a whole hell of a lot more time invested in the research of the drug and its effects. Remember - Y in the absence of X = ? Y + X = ? Those are questions that need to be answered.

ladysycamore • Jan 16, 2002 9:47 am

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ladysycamore
Oh, but he was a member of the armed services: he couldn't possibly be a threat to national security. He was just..."troubled". How about we just single out that Arab or Sikh Indian instead? It's MUCH easier, donchaknow. ;)

Originally posted by dhamsaic

NO.
He was REPEATEDLY called a terrorist.

Not as much at the time of the crime, but more recently. He certainly wasn't treated like the terroists that are now housed in Cuba.

You're twisting facts here to add to your argument - that's called "spin", and that's okay.

Mmm...no. I was merely making a slight joke with my McVeigh reference, which you did not pick up on...and that's ok too. ;)

ladysycamore • Jan 16, 2002 10:02 am

Originally posted by MaggieL

I think we're quite likely to see the letter eventually...sooner if it's in the hands of the NTSB, later if the Tampa cops have it, where somebody may try to seal the record because Bishop was a juvenile.

Most likely. Time will tell.

It would appear that one thing Bishop was quite "troubled" about was *being* a "dirty Arab". His dad's birth name was evidently "BIshara", and converations he had with a teacher after 9/11 suggest he was feeling terrible conflict about his Dad's ethnicity.

Interesting. Wonder if the media, etc. will play upon that information (about him being Arab).

ladysycamore • Jan 16, 2002 10:26 am

Originally posted by dhamsaic
Fortunately, the Klan has toned down their, uh, "message".

Perhaps, but IMO, the "threat" is still there, based on their history. I'm not putting anything past them.

I think they're all worthless pieces of shit - of that, there is no doubt. However, if they're not really "terrifying" anymore, I don't know if we can consider them "terrorists".

Mmm...maybe they don't terrify YOU, but if I were walking down the street, and I saw some dude with a hood on, I'd be running the other way like my life depended on it...Hell, it WOULD! Again: the potential is a greater threat to me that anything that they are trying to convince people of believeing: "Oh, we aren't like the Klan of the past." The hell you aren't. You STILL hate blacks, jews, catholics, gays, and God knows WHO else.

And who's to say that they won't summon up yet another revival at Stone Mountain, GA, like they've done during their history, to regroup, and "try" to revive some of the past? Sure, they may fail, but just the fact that they are ABLE to do so worries me more.

*from the history channel website*

KU KLUX KLAN

There have been three Ku Klux Klan movements, which, despite a
clear line of descent and strong family resemblances, were separate
from one another in time, organization, and purpose.

The first Klan flourished during the Reconstruction era and was all but
exclusively southern in its membership and concerns. Its objective was
to perpetuate white supremacy following emancipation and the
conferral of civil and political rights on blacks. It was founded at
Pulaski, Tennessee, in 1866 as a social fraternity, but rapidly became a
local regulator or vigilante organization similar to others at the time.
Perhaps intrigued by its secrecy, disguises, and unique name (derived
from a Greek word for "circle" or "band"), former Confederates
including Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest converted the Klan in 1867
into a paramilitary force to oppose the Republican state government
under William G. Brownlow. The order quickly spread across the
South in the spring of 1868 as other Republican state governments
came into being under the Congressional Reconstruction acts. A similar
group in southern Louisiana called itself the Knights of the White
Camellia.

Klansmen were drawn from every walk of life, but the leaders often
were from the landholding and professional elite. After a brief flurry of
practical joking and pretending to be ghosts, the Klan emerged as a
terrorist group dedicated to defeating the Republican party and
keeping blacks in "their place" socially and economically.

Most southern counties saw little of the Klan, but others were overrun
by it for months or years at a time. It tended to thrive where the two
parties or races were relatively evenly balanced; in such places,
terrorism was most apt to change election results. In the worst-affected
counties, disguised night riders ranged the countryside on a regular
basis, dragging people from their homes, whipping, shooting, or
otherwise assaulting them, destroying their property, or driving them
away. Most of the victims were black, but white Republicans were
also targets.

The Reconstruction Klan was largely rural; its victims fled to the towns
for safety. It was also predominantly local, differing from place to place
and with little or no central control. Members went their own way and
few dared stop them. Most southern whites sympathized with the
Klan's objectives if not its methods, and those who liked neither were
often intimidated by it. As a result, few southerners opposed it, and the
Klan often paralyzed the law enforcement process.

In a few states, such as Arkansas and North Carolina, white
Republicans organized militia units and broke up the Klan. In most
states, however, federal intervention was required, in the form of
congressional legislation, military arrests, and trials in federal courts. By
these means the Klan was virtually destroyed in 1871-1872.

Around the turn of the century the Klan, and the Confederate "lost
cause" generally, took on a retrospective romantic appeal for
southerners that had been lacking amid the suffering immediately after
the conflict. This appeal was greatly stimulated by Thomas Dixon's
1905 novel, The Clansman, and D. W. Griffith's 1915 motion picture
based on it, Birth of a Nation. The second Klan was born in that
environment in 1915, which encouraged the superpatriotism of World
War I. After the war its membership and geographic range expanded
dramatically.

During its heyday in the early 1920s this Klan numbered over 3 million
members nationwide, and it won political power in Indiana, Oklahoma,
Oregon, and a number of other states. Unlike its predecessor it was
mainly an urban phenomenon, reflecting the demographic changes in
the nation. It drew members and leaders from all ranks of white
society, but chiefly from lower-middle-class people, largely religious
fundamentalists who felt threatened by a national drift away from the
small-town Protestant culture they had grown up with.

The 1920s Klan fed on a variety of frustrations and fears: fear of the
immigrants who were entering the country in large numbers, of
communists and other radicals spawned by the Russian Revolution, of
blacks who were moving into northern cities in increasing numbers, of
Jews and Catholics who were rising in the economic and social order,
and of labor unions demanding a larger share of the pie for their
members.

Some of these Klansmen resorted to violence as in the days of old.
But, in a membership exceeding 3 million, the vast majority were
nonviolent. They marched in parades, paid dues, and bought regalia
(this Klan was, for some of its organizers, a financial bonanza). They
voted for Klan-endorsed political candidates and attended rallies
where crosses were burned. (The original Klan did not burn crosses;
the idea seems to have originated in Dixon's novels.) The organization
dwindled away in the late 1920s, the result of its own legal, financial,
and political excesses, though a remnant persisted until its final
disbandment in 1944.

Only two years later the third Klan emerged. It was fueled by the fear
of communism abroad and at home, but the civil rights movement
provided its major stimulus. Organized in many parts of the country, it
is primarily southern- and urban-based. Membership is still drawn
disproportionately from undereducated people with relatively low
social and economic status. The peak in membership came during the
civil rights demonstrations of the 1960s, when it approached seventeen
thousand.

The modern Klan is small, chronically fragmented, and prone to
internal conflict over matters of policy and personal rivalry. Groups
differ in their readiness to embrace violence. Some have accumulated
substantial arsenals and have even manufactured and sold weapons to
raise funds. They have sometimes forged alliances with like-minded
organizations, as happened in 1979 when North Carolina Klansmen
briefly formed a United Racist front with the state's tiny Nazi party.
Klansmen have also had ties to such white supremacist organizations
as the National States' Rights party, the Aryan Nations, and the
Skinheads.

For all their power to make newspaper headlines, the three Klans
historically failed to accomplish their major objectives. The first did not
end southern Reconstruction in the 1870s; that was more nearly the
work of organized rioters and Red Shirt campaigners. The second did
not significantly deflect the nation's progress toward a pluralistic,
democratic society in the 1920s. And the major effect of the third on
the civil rights movement was to hasten the triumph of that cause when
the Klan's violence helped mobilize public support for passage of
landmark civil rights legislation in the 1960s.

David Chalmers, Hooded Americanism: The History of
the Ku Klux Klan, 3d ed. (1987); Allen W. Trelease,
White Terror: The Ku Klux Klan Conspiracy and
Southern Reconstruction (1971); Wyn Craig Wade, The
Fiery Cross: The Ku Klux Klan in America (1987).

Allen W. Trelease

dave • Jan 16, 2002 10:28 am

Originally posted by ladysycamore
Sure, they may fail, but just the fact that they are ABLE to do so worries me more.

Yep, those freedoms we've got really bother me...

dave • Jan 16, 2002 10:32 am

P.S. - please provide links to relevant articles in the future instead of posting the entire text.

ladysycamore • Jan 16, 2002 10:39 am

Originally posted by Whit
Next subject, the KKK has not exactly toned down. What they've done is grown smarter. They still work hard at recruitment, but they recognise their message is unpopular right now. So, instead of being the big bad nasty death squad of the past they pretend to be civic minded activists.

BINGO!

What's worse is they don't think it's an act. They've been taught to speak more intelligently, so their message sounds more reasonable. They've helped set-up more (by the current standards) extreme white supremisist groups. Who then condem them for not being tough enough. Again making them sound less insane. This scare's me. I want my lunatics acting insane, they're easier to spot that way.

You know, it's funny you should state that last comment: Many blacks who "came up" during the Civil Rights movement have stated that it was "easier" to deal/fight/handle those who were "in your face" than the undercover, underlying racism that is "the norm" now. This is why it's harder nowadays to file suits against employers regarding discrimination, etc.

This has been going on for awhile now. I remember about a decade ago when they set up shop in north west Arkansas a black guy I worked with said they had asked all the african-americans in the area to a big picnic to show how much they had changed. (He didn't go) The fact that he wouldn't back down doesn't mean that he wasn't scared.

I don't blame him for not going. I wouldn't have gone either. They MUST have been out of their minds! :mad:

As far as the kid goes, my original opinion is largely unchanged. The big difference is that I don't think he should get a Darwin award, he offed himself on purpose, suicides are automaticaly excluded. Heck, I'd love to hear some jokes on this. Of the "What's the last thing that goes through a bugs mind when he hit's a windshield going 60 mph?" variety. He wanted to kill. In my book you lose all consideration given to a victim when that person person seeks to victimize others. I actually chuckled when I found out he was seeking to do real damage and instead wound up doing almost nothing. He was confused? Tough shit. I know people who have been through much worse and they never killed anyone over it. I have no sympthy for him.

I heard that!!! :D

ladysycamore • Jan 16, 2002 10:46 am

Originally posted by dhamsaic
P.S. - please provide links to relevant articles in the future instead of posting the entire text.

I tried to right click the site, but since the text was in a funky frame of sorts, no link was obtained.

dave • Jan 16, 2002 10:55 am

I hate that shit. When sites do that. More than that though, I hate that javascript that disables the right click. Man does that piss me off.

ladysycamore • Jan 16, 2002 11:01 am

Originally posted by dhamsaic
I hate that shit. When sites do that. More than that though, I hate that javascript that disables the right click. Man does that piss me off.

I KNOW! I hate that when I'm trying to steal a photo from a website and...whoops. Told on meself...LOL! :D

dave • Jan 16, 2002 11:15 am

It just pisses me off 'cause I always right-click -> "Back" to go back when I'm done reading a page. That annoying fucking popup they do to steal the focus just pisses me off. I always make it a point to never go to that site again.

Nic Name • Feb 7, 2002 12:47 am

15-year-old suicide pilot acted alone, police say

Reuters News Agency

Tampa, Fla. — A 15-year-old student pilot who crashed a plane into a Tampa office building last month was not a terrorist, despite a note he left praising Osama bin Laden and supporting the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States, Tampa police said Wednesday.

Ending their investigation into an incident that some saw as a grim echo of the airliner assaults on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, Tampa, Fla. police said Charles Bishop acted alone when he intentionally flew a stolen, single-engine Cessna into the Bank of America building in Tampa.

Mr. Bishop died on Jan. 5 after he took the plane from a St. Petersburg, Fla. airport where he had been taking flying lessons, flew through restricted airspace at MacDill Air Force Base and crashed into the 28th floor of the 42-story tower. No one else was injured.

"Based on information obtained during this exhaustive investigation, there is no indication the plane crash was in any way an act of terrorism. Authorities further concluded the incident appears to have been an intentional act on the part of the pilot, Charles Bishop," the Tampa Police Department said in a statement.

The joint investigation was conducted by the Tampa police, the FBI and other federal, local and state agencies.

For the first time, investigators released the full text of the two-page handwritten letter found in the wreckage of the plane. Police had summarized the letter in the days after the crash, saying it expressed support for bin Laden, the Islamic militant believed responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks, which killed some 3,000 people.

Mr. Bishop wrote, "I have prepared this statement in regards to the terrorist acts I am about to commit." The word terrorist was then crossed out.

"First of all, Osama bin Laden is absolutely justified in the terror he has caused on 9-11," the note continued. "He has brought a mighty nation to its knees! God blesses him and the others who helped make September 11 happen.

"The U.S. will have to face the consequences for its horrific actions against the Palestinian people and Iraqis by its allegiance with the monstrous Israelis who want nothing short of world domination.

"You will pay — God help you — and I will (underlined) make you pay.

"There will be more coming! Al Qaeda and other organizations have met with me several times to discuss the option of me joining. I didn't.

"This is an operation done by me only. I had no other help, although I am acting on their behalf.

"Osama bin Laden is planning on blowing up the Super Bowl with an antiquated nuclear bomb left over from the 1967 Israeli-Syrian war," the unsigned note concluded.

There were no incidents at last Sunday's Super Bowl game in New Orleans, which was played under heavy security.

Mr. Bishop's mother released a statement shortly after the crash calling her son a boy who loved his country. Students and teachers who knew him said he never said anything in support of bid Laden or the Sept. 11 attacks.

This guy can't get labelled a terrorist with this note and an intentional plane crash into the Bank of America tower.

Thank god that wasn't another terrorist attack. whew. I can relax now. Just a prank, after all.

I see now why they had to embargo the letter until after the Super Bowl. Because it contained a terrorist threat.

jeni • Feb 7, 2002 1:01 am

it's funny how often parents are so clueless about their kids.

yeah, he loved his country. right.

dave • Feb 7, 2002 9:12 am

This whole fiasco could have gone over much better if he would have just come up to VA and said "beat me to death, I'm planning on flying a plane into a building." I would have met his request, and there would be no ruined plane or a hole in a building.

I think they probably deemed him a non-terrorist because it's quite obvious that he is off his rocker. What a little tool.

Anyway. I think he was a terrorist. Fuck the FL police.

Undertoad • Feb 7, 2002 10:30 am

Hey, they said Al Queda was trying to recruit non-Arabic people, maybe the kid was the first.

Nic Name • Feb 7, 2002 1:15 pm

Well, actually, his father was Arabic and his real name was Bishara until the mother changed the family name to Bishop during the Gulf War because of anti-Arab sentiment in the USA.

blowmeetheclown • Feb 7, 2002 3:29 pm

TSG had the link to his note: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/tampasu1.shtml
Interesting read. Sounds like a dork, trying to play himself up.

dave • Feb 7, 2002 3:52 pm

Pretty much. "I am so pimp. I will make you pay."

Yeah, for the ruined plane and a few thousand bucks to put in a few window. Big fuckin' deal.

Nic Name • Feb 7, 2002 4:44 pm

Don't you think they paid with the additional security at Super Bowl? Those were huge numbers, that might well have been justified on the basis of this threat, which was withheld from the public until after the Super Bowl.

blowmeetheclown • Feb 7, 2002 4:59 pm

what were the final numbers? anyone have a valid estimate?

dave • Feb 7, 2002 5:58 pm

I don't think that anyone took him seriously. "ooh, Osama bin Laden is planning on blowing up the Super Bowl with an antiquated nuclear bomb left over from the 1967 Six-day war". Like they had nukes ready for that war? And like UBL would tell that little piece of shit? Come on..

They were going to beef up security at the Super Bowl anyway. I guarantee you that it was already planned. The CIA and NSA know more about it than some 15 year old twat. More than likely, they just withheld the note because they didn't want to cause a panic.

Nic Name • Feb 7, 2002 6:23 pm

And isn't that the definition of a terrorist threat?

blowmeetheclown • Feb 7, 2002 7:07 pm

So maybe this kid just read Tom Harris, eh? http://www.randomhouse.com/features/thomasharris/blacksunday.html

Nic Name • Feb 7, 2002 11:57 pm

And watched:

Sudden Death (1995)

Synopsis:
It's the seventh game of the Stanley Cup Finals. The Pittsburgh Penguins are battling the Chicago Blackhawks as 17,000 frenzied fans, including the Vice President of the United States, are on the edge of their seats--unaware that an elite group of terrorists is about to make this a game no one will ever forget. Darren McCord is a fireman with a troubled past. When his young daughter is suddenly taken hostage during the hockey game, McCord engages in a deadly game of cat-and-mouse with a ruthlessly cold-blooded adversary. With thousands of lives at stake, including that of his son, McCord battles both the terrorists and his own personal demons as the seconds on the game clock race towards a fateful conclusion.

Nic Name • Feb 9, 2002 8:55 pm

What could be the words that appear to be missing from Bishop's suicide note?

"I am acting on [ ] their behalf."

"... blowing up the Super Bowl with an [ ] antiquated nuclear bomb ..."

Very strange.

blowmeetheclown • Feb 11, 2002 10:30 am

"I am acting on [none of] their behalf."
"... blowing up the Super Bowl with an [inoperable] antiquated nuclear bomb ..."
Also missing is the last paragraph of the page, "[I am a dumb cluck that is doing the world a favor. You will forget me in 6 months.]"

russotto • Feb 11, 2002 2:47 pm

The bit about blowing up the Superbowl with a leftover Israeli bomb (though not from that war) just means he read Clancy's _Sum of All Fears_

Nic Name • May 26, 2002 9:02 pm

Posted on Sun, May. 26, 2002

Small-plane suicide attacks possible, FBI says

WASHINGTON - (AP) -- The FBI has issued a fresh warning that terrorists may be interested in using small planes to carry out suicide attacks.

FBI supervisory special agent Steven Berry said Saturday that the agency had issued an ''intelligence update'' to law enforcement regarding small planes but he declined to be more specific.

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association said on its website the alert was issued because the FBI ``has received information indicating that terrorists may still be interested in using small general aviation aircraft for suicide attacks in the United States.''

''Pilots are strongly encouraged to remain alert for suspicious activities anytime they are flying, or at an airport just before or after a flight,'' the association said. ``Individuals observing anything suspicious should report it to the local FBI or law enforcement officials.''

Another "we saw this coming and we told you so" alert from Foggy Bottom Inc.

RQuinn • May 27, 2002 12:43 am

Originally posted by russotto
The bit about blowing up the Superbowl with a leftover Israeli bomb (though not from that war) just means he read Clancy's _Sum of All Fears_

Doesn't Black Sunday have the same idea? I never got around to reading it, but I was told it was about Terrorists at the SuperBowl

Nic Name • May 27, 2002 1:13 am

I think you're right. I haven't seen Sum Of All Fears yet but I don't think it is about the Superbowl. Oh no, I hope we haven't spoiled it!

MaggieL • May 27, 2002 9:18 am

"The Sum of All Fears" was actually written and published quite some time ago. It has been changed (more than a little) for the movie version.

Back to Forum | Back to Top