Fight Club

Last week on Laura Ingraham’s radio talk show she had on as guest’s, Michelle Malkin and some Imam, who’s name I don’t remember. They were having a discussion [debate] on the 6 Imam’s who got booted of the airplane for suspicious behavior. During the debate Laura received an email from someone claiming to work for an airline and to be familiar with seat belt extenders. The email went on to say that seat belt extenders can be used to connect seat belts between isle seats, in effect blocking the isles from easy movement. It went on to say that hi-jackers in the past used this method to block the isles so that passengers couldn’t easily move up and down them. I don’t know how true this is but common sense tells me this is very possible and should be alarming.

Does anyone think that the first 7 rules would exemplify behavior of terrorists? It seems odd that so much security focuses on people deliberately doing things that draw attention to themselves and not trying to blend in.

Seriously, I bookmarked this site because I got the impression that it consisted of intelligent people who think things through and call bullshit when they see it. Is there any non-bullshit rationale by which a reasonable person would have felt threatened by the 6 men above?

Put on your thinking caps for a minute (yes, this means you, coffee260). Just close your eyes and imagine these 6 men, using emergency seat belts, trying to take over an airplane with 200 passengers in the post 9/11 world. Bear in mind that the cockpit doors are locked and the 200 passengers, having heard of 9/11, will be thinking “successful highjacking = death of me and my family”.

The terrorists over the intercom:
“Okay everyone, stay seated and calm while we take charge of the airplane – we promise not to crash it into any buildings. Do not resist, or else one of us will walk over and strangle you while all of the remaining 199 passengers sit still being thankful that it’s not them being strangled. Also, for those that want to resist, please take turns – no more than 6 of you may resist at a time. Don’t even think about ganging up on us, we’ve strung emergency seat belts across the aisles to slow you down.” Intercom goes off – terrorist whispers to stewardess: “Now, tell the pilots that we’re going to be strangling the 200 passengers six at a time. We won’t stop until they fly this plane into the Sears Tower.”

Flight 93 showed that as of 10:00 a.m. September 11, 2001, the “take over a plane and crash into a building” threat was an untenable terrorist plot.

How is the above YouTube video, with it’s bullshit background music reinforcing the bullshit idea that we need to be afraid of getting onto a plane with anyone who acts differently, any less bullshit than the AP citing bullshit sources like Jamil Hussein to make a bullshit implication that Iraq is in a civil war? Why are right-wingers so quick to criticize the AP for overhyping a Mosque bombing, yet at the same time so quick to piddle all over themselves (and demand ever-more-intrusive, utterly useless protection from the incredibly incompetent employess of the TSA) when some guys with dark skin ask for seat belt restraints?

Why must both sides be so full of shit?

The fact that you read (but tellingly, did not quote) this:
Bear in mind that the cockpit doors are locked and the 200 passengers, having heard of 9/11, will be thinking “successful highjacking = death of me and my family”…
Flight 93 showed that as of 10:00 a.m. September 11, 2001, the “take over a plane and crash into a building” threat was an untenable terrorist plot.

Then wrote this:
Ok, maybe you are that dense. It was less then six per plane who took over the 9/11 planes.

Is all I needed to see. How is your response to what I wrote any different than the vague “we’re happy with our reporting”? Can you even see how it stinks in much the same way?

Curt: I was beginning to think I had the market captured on Trolls. I see one got away.

Kevin: The conduct of these Imams is the equivalent of shouting “FIRE” in a crowded auditorium. Shouting “Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar!” has the same effect.

This was a deliberate act of psychological terrorism with the purpose of creating an incident which can be used for political advantage or to force a loosening of the controls in place to prevent another hijacking. I can already imagine the heat that is being put on pilots to avoid a repeat of this episode by accomodating the next effort to probe our security.

I realize my thoughts on this matter will likely not make a dent in someone whose world view is so reeking in references to cattle excrement. But if you really did bookmark this site because you “got the impression that it consisted of intelligent people who think things through” then perhaps you could do a little thinking yourself and find a more appealing and convincing way of presenting your argument.

Kevin: I’m pleased that you omitted reference to animal excrement, but other than that, I see no improvement in your ability to make a cogent and sensible argument that has any potential to persaude.

Your stream of consciousness rant reveals a mindset programmed by the Michael Moore school of hyperbole and disinformation. There are some valid points among the load of “bullshit” (your favorite word) but it is totally lost in the unfocused screed you present.

I’m sure I speak for many of Curt’s readers when I say I would be happy to dialogue with you on the areas of agreement we might have if you could only drop the seething resentment and bitterness which lies below the surface of your comments.

I find it interesting that you talk about “irrational fears” then go on to list so many irrational fears of your own. That you think anyone in government cares what you discuss on the phone with a non-terrorist in another country is just the clearest indication of how misplaced your fears are.

For years this country ignored the very real threat of Islamic fascism (you can call it extremism, radicalism or whatever, I don’t care). Mounting attacks costing many American lives should have warned us to the very REAL threat, but we ignored it.

Perhaps you can do more to enhance your argument by telling us how we can deal with the very real threat of Islamic fascism. Then, after that, maybe we can discuss ways to make the highways safer.

Yeah..it’s a cyclical thing with the liberal crowd..kinda like nature itself, but don’t tell the liberals!

————————————-
Another favorite of the liberal crowd. Give it another 30 years and we will be back to a global ice age scare as we had in the 70’s.

First, I apologize to Curt and readers of his blog. My comments to this entry have used crude language and been unexcusably vitriolic. I allowed an us-vs-them mentality to dominate my thinking, making a meaningful exchange of ideas all but impossible. Thanks Mike and Wordsmith for giving level-headed responses that served as a wakeup call.

The youtube video set me off because it was the first impression I got of this story, and I felt it used imagery, sound effects, and selective snippets of information to manipulate rather than inform the viewer. It’s Curt’s attack on the MSM “manipulate and spin rather than inform” tactics that impressed me; hence, his endorsement of this video was a bit of a letdown.

On the plus side, I’ve now discovered Michelle Malkin’s web blog, where I found a much more informative and balanced treatment of the story, including links to the police report and follow-up interviews with witnesses. This is the presentation style I prefer. I’ve not dropped FloppingAces just yet, but it is now squarely behind Michellemalkin.com… in my bookmark list.

To attempt to rescue some rationale from my earlier, quasi-structured posts: I believe tax dollars allocated for Homeland Security are largely being spent on measures which have little chance of actually making the US tax payers safer.

Wordsmith, your analogy to fire extingusihers is perfect! Fire extinguishers are a great purchase because they are cheap and effective at reducing a frequent, expensive, and dangerous threat (400,000 housefires and 3,000 deaths last year alone!). Similarly, seatbelts, car locks, locks on doors are all sensible saftey measures, having costs proportional to efficacy and actual risk level.

In contrast, the TSA is spending vast sums of our tax dollars on efforts that have a near-zero chance of thwarting terrorist attacks. They are maintaining “no fly” lists which are utterly useless – the equivalent of an antispam email program that puts all messages from “Citibank” into a “spam” folder and all other messages into a “safe” folder. They are attempting to collect and consilidate huge repositories of data in the hopes that some magical data mining computer program will spot the terrorists. They strip airplane passengers of all classes of crudely “weaponizable” objects: sharp scissors, blunt rocks, etc.; which is dumb for several reasons:

1) Terrorists are never going to win by “clubbing America to death”. There’s too many of us and their arms would get tired. Even if they did wish to persue such a campaign, they could much more easily club Americans in parks, restaurants, and shopping malls.

2) The only other threat posed by crude weapons in a plane is the 9/11-style commandeering the aircraft, but this threat is much more effectivley and econimically addressed with measures like locked cockpit doors and public awareness of hijacker’s intentions.

3) The more objects TSA screeners are on the lookout for, the better chance any particular object will slip through. So the failure rate for detecting guns or exlposives (which could be used to bring the entire plane down) will be much higher if screeners are looking for sharp objects, blunt objects, wiry objects, etc., in addition to guns and bombs.

4) Even if some far-out terrorist plot hinged on getting crude weapons onto a plane, the well-funded terrorist will be able to afford any number of disguised weapons which wouldn’t be detected in the first place, such as comb handles that cleanly “break” into knives with razor-sharp edges.

——————————–

Mike, you asked what I felt should be done to defend ourselves against Islamic Fascism. May I presume you are talking about the “kill the infidels” ideology? In combatting any threatening ideology there are only two things you can do:
1) Minimize the number of people who hold the ideology and
2) Minimize the potential of people who hold the ideology to inflict harm on you.

I think we’d disagree on the best way to persue these, but can we at least agree that the current administration has adopted foreign policies and tactics that have increased the number of islamo-fascists in the world, without having done much to decrease the potential of the islamo-fascists to inflict harm on the people of the United States?

Kevin: Am I correct in understanding that the above video was the first you heard of this story? If so, I am astounded.

It was all over the news. Most of us concluded early on that it wasn’t a terrorist attempt but an effort to make a political statement and stir up a fuss about profiling of Muslims. Certainly the equivalent of shouting “FIRE” in a crowded auditorium.

There were other Muslims on the plane who were NOT shouting “Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar!” And I recall one story where the other Muslims on the plane applauded along with the other passengers when those creating the disturbance were removed.

I would recommend reading Debra Burglingame’s piece in Opinion Journal for more. Her brother was one of the pilot’s killed on September 11th:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009348

Somehow I doubt you’ll insult Curt by deferring to Michelle Malkin. Those two have been pretty cozy over the years.

And NO, I cannot disagree more strongly with your suggestion that the “current administration has adopted foreign policies and tactics that have increased the number of islamo-fascists in the world.”

I need only remind you that thousands and thousands of jihadis were training in Osama bin Laden’s camps in Afghanistan all through the 1990’s when the Clinton “terrorism is a law enforcement problem” strategy was being tried.

The hate propaganda and call to radical jihad goes back a long way. And it is not dependent on the policy of any particular U.S. administration, our support for Israel, or even the existence of Israel.

How else can you explain the campaingn by Jihadis to butcher Buddhist monks and teachers in Thailand?

http://mikesamerica.blogspot.com/2006/07/buddhist-teacher-murdered-in-thailand.html

Again, correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t recall Buddhist monks being pro-Israel, pro-US or pro-Christian.

There’s a running commentary thread on the following post which you may find interesting:

http://thepugilstick.blogspot.com/2006/12/combat-islam.html

In it you will read the comments of a Muslim who after declaring the glory of Allah and Mohammed because of a crack found in the moon (this was too good for me to pass up) said that Jihad, or terrorism in many cases was only self defense.

Again, not sure how peaceloving monks teaching school children was threatening, unless you declare that anyone failing to convert to your brand of hate is a threat.

OK, now that I have gotten seriously off track, I do want to commend you for realizing that your earlier comments were counter-productive.

And I also find some of the Transportation Security Administration requirements a bit puzzling. So I’ll close this long ramble on that point of mild agreement.

May I also wish you Merry Christmas!

That’s quite a phrase Wordsmith: “quagmiring chicken-littles.”

And you are absolutely right in the totality of your comment.

Especially on this 65th anniversary of Pearl Harbor we remember that America suffers when we are weak and lack the fortitude and unity to confront our foes.

It is when we are strong and benefit from leadership enhanced by vision that we succeed and the world is a better place because of it.

A more recent example was President Reagan’s “peace through strength” approach to the Soviet Union. His critics said that our foreign policy put us at greater danger. If Kevin was around at the time he might recall the constant warning of a nuclear war and resulting planetary destruction that Democrats insisted would be the result of our reckless policy.

Just the opposite was true.