What a awesome video.
Please go to the youtube page and give it 5 stars tho, the lefties are doing their best to get it thrown out.
See author page
What a awesome video.
Please go to the youtube page and give it 5 stars tho, the lefties are doing their best to get it thrown out.
See author page
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?
Please tell me your not that dense. It’s the totality of the circumstances. If it walks like a duck as the old saying goes. Do I believe they were planning on taking the plane over? No. But I am certain they had all this planned to start a media blitz…all to get our PC society in a uproar.
Ok, maybe you are that dense. It was less then six per plane who took over the 9/11 planes.
Because there was no evidence of the bombings or the burnings except a fraud of a police officer and 3 unnamed witnesses. Whereas on the plane there was plenty of evidence to provide any reasonable person evidence that these guys were up to no good.
Go back to KOS land where you PC types are welcome.
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?
The very fact that you feel we are completely safe up in the skies is more proof that you are in fact delusional. We are NOT completely safe. How about if the terrorists just want to blow the thing up? Not enter the cockpit. No time for the passengers to overtake him? There are endless possibilities that this evil spends many hours trying to formulate.
But you believe we are all safe….what a joke you are.
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.
Hey Curt,
Of course we are not COMPLETELY safe in ANY context. But to be afraid at a level utterly disproportionate to the actual threat is stupid and, get this: encouraging this fear HELPS THE TERRORISTS.
Think about this: why do you work harder to spread fear about terrorists hijacking airplanes, which historically kill a few thousand Americans per decade (on a bad decade), than you do to spread awareness about car accidents that kill 40,000 Americans every year?
You call me delusional? What would scare you more – sitting on an airplane next to a nervous-looking Arabic man who mumbles prayers to Allah and speaks broken English… or riding in a car while your wife flips through the radio stations while driving?
Does spreading an irrational fear amongst the American public help, or hinder, the terrorists? This fear-mongering, which absoluetly seeps out of the youtube video above, is the bullshit that I see on the “right” side of the fence that bothers me just as much as the Jamil-style bullshit on the “left”.
Irrational fears are why we spend billions of dollars to strip sewing needles from old ladies who want to knit a scarf on the flight from Dallas to Chicago; to dissuade men named “Robert Johnson”, “Gary Smith”, or “John Williams” from boarding planes in the US; and [probably] to track the fact that my Indian co-worker called me yesterday about a server problem. This is instead of spending just a few million to lock cockpit doors and then billions of dollars on:
1) Modernizing medical facilities and emergency rooms across the country (which will save lives whether its an Iranian terrorist detonating a dirty bomb, a domestic terrorist boming a building in Oklahoma City, a hurricane hitting a large coastal town, an earthquake with an epicenter near a major city, or your wife crashing the car because she was trying to find Rush Limbaugh on the dial when she should have been yielding to oncoming traffic).
2) Recruiting and training human intelligence officers to infiltrate and monitor terrorist organizations around the globe… it’s more expensive, but it’s far more effective than building secret prisons to where CIA operatives can torture false confessions and misleading information out of suspected terrorists – and hey! it doesn’t help terrorist organizations’ recruiting efforts.
3) Addressing threats that *are* legitimately scary: nuclear weapon proliferation, pandemic diseases, catastrophic storms and flooding resulting from global temperature rises, etc.
4) Clustering thousands of people at the entrances of football stadiums to pat them down so they can’t use a bomb to kill large clusters of people inside the stadiums.
🙂 I’m going to go out on a limb, and guess that you’re quite a proponent of the 4th item…
Anyway, the next time you start sweating bullets because the guy boarding the plane ahead of you has “Bush Lied” plastered on his carry-on luggage, maybe you should ask yourself who’s truly being delusional?
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.
Here we go with the typical moonbat argument “why spend money on securing ourselves when we can spend it on other things”…blah blah blah. Fact is one of the reasons why those hijackers were so successful is because of our horrible airport security. So money spent on those things is well spent. The only reason old ladies get pulled aside with the rest of them is due to this very same PC culture that I am railing against. What! We’re singling out only middle eastern men…racial profiling! So instead they have to treat everyone the same which is simple insane. But you liberals love it…so be it.
CIA prisons? They are a great tool to gather information from the worst of the worst of our enemies. You don’t agree with them and that is not surprising from a bleeding heart liberal. You guys have no common sense.
Addressing Nuclear proliferation….its being done as we speak through your precious UN. Which will get the same results as they did with Iraq. The UN is useless and corrupt and will talk someone to death before they do anything.
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. If you guys don’t have some kind of made up cause I suppose you don’t feel complete.
Kinda sad actually.
As for the rest, Mike answered admirably.
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.
That’s a very flawed analogy, Kevin. More people die of lung cancer, as well; but so what? More appropriate would be to compare the likelihood of air traffic accidents to the chances of being in a car accident.
What are the chances of your house ever actually being set on fire? A public school? A health club? Yet we have fire extinguishers available anyway. We will always devote resources to protect ourselves from unlikely events. Prevention makes sense. It’s why you lock your car and your home when you leave.
And in the case of the 6 imams, I see nothing at all irrational in the alarm bells raised. It was a pattern of behavior that earned them the attention; and the irresponsible, stupid thing to do, would be to ignore warning signs.
Also, it’s meaningless to cite “terrorists hijacking planes historically kill however many per decade, since we are navigating in a post 9-11 world, here. Everything’s changed. Percentage-wise, if you measure all of the hundreds of thousands of flights that occur worldwide each week, the likelihood of any terrorist incident occurring anywhere, is almost nil. But it only takes one lapse in vigilance…a lapse in judgment…and then think of all the financial and emotional costs to our society should we have another event, like 9/11.
What I am concerned about, is all the media attention not only reminds good citizens to remain vigilant; but it also clues the true terrorists in on what they might and might not be able to get away with, should they try to hijack planes. The next ones will more than likely use the news of the 6 imams as a training aide. They will avoid doing everything that the 6 imams did wrong in drawing attention to themselves. Since it’s so widely regarded that purchasing a one-way ticket is on the checklist of signs to look for, you can be sure that the next airplane terrorists will probably be sure to fund the purchase of roundtrip tickets, just to eliminate that profile from the checklist.
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?
Guess you should of searched a bit harder, this video post was probably my 3rd post on the subject. The other two also had a commentary along with the police report and other documents. Please do some research before you try to tell my readers that I don’t do a well researched post. As far as MM, she has a great site and to lose you to her would not be unusual. She gave me my first big break with links to me a few years ago so my feelings are not hurt….lol
I disagree. We flew just recently and I was very impressed at the security measures that have been instituted so far. While my wife is a bit peeved about losing some lotion, it was her fault for not heeding my warning about that stuff. It can be a pain for sure, but a pain well worth undergoing. What I get upset about is that they are forced to pull over granny because our PC culture demands them to NOT racially profile. It’s idiotic. These six Imams obviously had an agenda and I believe it’s further ingrain the PC culture into our society.
If there is one thing I have learned as a cop is to never, NEVER, underestimate the mind of a criminal. They can be quite ingenuous as 9/11 proved and to actually believe that there is no other threat other then a hijacking is utterly foolish and naive.
Wow…couldn’t disagree more. Fanatical Islam has been at war with us for decades but due to the head in the sand mentality of our leaders and society in general we never declared war back. Now that we actually started fighting them back you moonbats believe we started it. How incredibly ignorant. We are killing the leaders at a very high rate, good thing. Killing the enemy at a high rate, another good thing. We are fighting them over there instead of over here, another good thing.
To actually believe that we should of just stood around and sent a few missiles into a empty tent as Clinton did is insane and dangerous.
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!
kevin,
Thanks for your civility.
I think you and I might feel similarly when it comes to banning certain tools because they “might be potentially harmful” to passengers. Anyone with a mindset to do violence can improvise a weapon out of ordinary tools and everyday items. My thoughts on the matter. And I agree with Curt that it wouldn’t be so necessary to go by rote procedure of screening EVERYBODY without discriminating their POTENTIAL likelihood of being a terrorist. We are handicapped by the PC mentality not to profile.
Our country is so obsessed with race and ethnic discrimination, that we’ve abandoned our reasoning in instances where paying attention to race and being discriminatory is a good thing. A common sense thing.
If I’m a police officer and I get in a call to be on the lookout for a black male in his 20’s, 5″ 11″, wearing a blue t-shirt and wearing baggy jeans….is the fact that it’s a black suspect being racist? Yes, in the sense that I am going to pay attention to skin-color, one of the quickest identifiable traits. But no, in the sense that I’m singling out blacks, in this particular instance, without a good reason. It’s insane, should the dispatcher not clue me into the racial, ethnic profile of the suspect and I end up doing a broader search because of it, from a larger pool of potential suspects, when I could easily have the field narrowed down. Skin-color is only ONE aspect of a list of things for me to be on the lookout for. To leave out skin complexion would be just as crazy as leaving out the fact that he wears sagging jeans, for fear of offending and being prejudiced against everyone I encounter wearing sagging jeans.
I’m with Curt and Mike on this. I don’t think it’s our aggressiveness that has created more jihadists; it’s our apparent weakness. Bargaining from a position of strength is respected; from a position of weakness is not. Note the hush in the Middle East right after “Mission Accomplished”, with Saddam’s regime overthrown in only 3 weeks! It’s a huge military victory and a feather in the cap for Donald Rumsfeld. For a moment, the world was “shock and awed”. Gaddafi pledged that Libya would give up its nuclear arms programs. Other nations in the Middle East were also cowed; North Korea was also quiet. Then we began appearing indecisive with “there were no wmd” war critics, political pressure, anti-war rallies, quagmiring chicken-littles declaring Iraq a disaster at every little setback from the get-go, media obsession and handwringing over abu Ghraib and Gitmo…when foreign nations see such irresoluteness, such division within America, such weakness, looking like “a paper tiger”, it only emboldens America’s enemy; it enourages them into the belief that if they keep hammering away, keep setting up IEDs, keep creating havoc and making the evening news back in American living rooms, then America’s resolve will falter. And if we show the world that America no longer has the stomach to endure and sustain losses; that America no longer has what it takes to win wars because we’re soft on the inside, despite our vastly superior military technology, just what kind of message do you suppose that sends to the terrorists? Think a man like Zarqawi would just be peddling a shish kabob stand on the streets of Jordan or living peaceably as a farmer, if America had never invaded Afghanistan or Iraq?
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.
You just can’t negotiate with terrorist-sponsoring nations and just enemies in general, from a position of weakness. That’s why working with Iran and Syria on Iraq would just be rewarding them, and sending a bad message.
Here’s Dennis Miller on the six imams.
(Mike’s probably already seen it).
Watch it before it’s gone
Watch this, and you won’t be surprised that “progressives” are trying to ban it from YouTube:
I’d like to add something profound, but I can’t. The video pretty much says it all.
Hat tip: Flopping Aces
del.icio.us | …