Completely Bogus terrorist threats?
I keep hearing about these flights being stopped because potential terrorists might be targeting them.
Maybe it's just me, but if I was trying to stop terrorists I think I would actually try to catch them instead of just canceling a flight if I learned they were planning to do a 9/11 style attack. I'd load the flight with undercover agents, let the terrorists show up with their box cutters, and wait for them to try something. Obviously, I'd make sure their baggage and shoes received extra special, but not conspicuous attention. But why on earth would you just cancel the flight?
I'm starting to suspect all this stuff is just to keep us in a constant state of fear.
Maybe it's just me, but if I was trying to stop terrorists I think I would actually try to catch them instead of just canceling a flight if I learned they were planning to do a 9/11 style attack. I'd load the flight with undercover agents, let the terrorists show up with their box cutters, and wait for them to try something. Obviously, I'd make sure their baggage and shoes received extra special, but not conspicuous attention. But why on earth would you just cancel the flight?
I'm starting to suspect all this stuff is just to keep us in a constant state of fear.
Comments
We are at war with Eurasia.
We have always been at war with Eurasia.
Well gotta start deleting all the threads here as my patriotic duty against all what is America (or England or whatever)
Down with Bush the Devil
It seems heavy-handed, but you can't get any safer than grounding a suspected plane. If they suspected it, but didn't ground it (because they "thought" they apprehended the bad guy in some orchestrated sting operation), but the plane goes down anyway, then an awful lot of people would complain about that, too.
On the optimistic side, I think if they have gotten their intelligence down to the point where they can red flag specific planes before take-off, I'd say that is pretty impressive. I would like to see more reports of them successfully apprehending somebody off these grounded flights when they do ground them, though.
Originally posted by billybobsky
wait i thought they were our allies.
I think Eurasia is a reference to 1984... that was their enemy they were always at war with... War is Peace.
It's been a while since I've read the book, though.
Originally posted by bauman
I think Eurasia is a reference to 1984... that was their enemy they were always at war with... War is Peace.
It's been a while since I've read the book, though.
That was the sound of a joke whizzing right overhead. ;p
How does grounding a flight help? If you don't know who you're looking for (and not a single suspected terrorist has been detained from any of these canceled flights), how do you know they're not just going to get back on the plane with everyone else?
Originally posted by bauman
I think Eurasia is a reference to 1984... that was their enemy they were always at war with... War is Peace.
It's been a while since I've read the book, though.
Indeed it was a reference to 1984. So was my post and perhaps Anders', although I am not entirely sure of that.
In 1984 they kept switching enemies to get rid of the problem of war fatigue. Well, there was no war really, just three seemingly independent powers that were in constant battle/alliance.
Ah well so much for attempting a generally understood joke.
Originally posted by Randycat99
Didn't they ground like 7 flights or something? Where you gonna get 7 flights of special agents for an operation like that? Also, what about the people that were supposed to be in those real flights? They still need to get to where they're going. How do they figure who the "bad guys" are to let on the plane and turn away the "innocent ones"? What if it is the wrong one, and the real bad guy is the one that gets turned away to plot again another day?
While profiling may be politically incorrect, I'm pretty sure that they could safely exclude grandmothers, families traveling with children, and other people who "check out" ok. Replace them (and the stewardesses) with agents, give everyone else an extra-attentive, but covert inspection before boarding, make sure the cockpit door is securely bolted, and see what happens.
If your argument is that this approach is too risky, then what exactly is the potential danger? Am I to believe that with all the technological resources of the intelligence community we cannot determine whether or not someone is carrying a weapon before they board a plane? Can we not secure a cockpit door by now?
Am I really supposed to believe that it is an effective deterrent to give terrorists a "do-over" every time we get a heads up on their plans?
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
While profiling may be politically incorrect, I'm pretty sure that they could safely exclude grandmothers, families traveling with children, and other people who "check out" ok. Replace them (and the stewardesses) with agents, give everyone else an extra-attentive, but covert inspection before boarding, make sure the cockpit door is securely bolted, and see what happens.
Goddammit!
People use "PC" excuses to justify ANYTHING. ANYTHING!
Profiling is racist and unfairly discriminatory. It has nothing to do with "political correctness." Nothing ever does. It's the most uselessly descriptive term ever invented. Argh.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Goddammit!
People use "PC" excuses to justify ANYTHING. ANYTHING!
Profiling is racist and unfairly discriminatory. It has nothing to do with "political correctness." Nothing ever does. It's the most uselessly descriptive term ever invented. Argh.
I'm not sure if you are objecting to profiling in principle or practice, but there is no reason, IMO, that profiling is necessarily racist. Is it somehow racist to observe that most Al queda members are middle eastern or male or of a certain age? I don't think so.
It's a completely contextual thing, whether considering race is racist or not. If a guy robs a bank and flees, no one considers it racist to describe his race even if it might result in local citizens matching such a description getting a double look by the police. Similarly, if you had real intelligence suggesting a terrorist was targeting a specific flight, wouid it be racist to look more carefully at a middle eastern male on that flight than an elderly, hispanic woman from Iowa?
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
I'm not sure if you are objecting to profiling in principle or practice, but there is no reason, IMO, that profiling is necessarily racist. Is it somehow racist to observe that most Al queda members are middle eastern or male or of a certain age? I don't think so.
It's a completely contextual thing, whether considering race is racist or not. If a guy robs a bank and flees, no one considers it racist to describe his race even if it might result in local citizens matching such a description getting a double look by the police. Similarly, if you had real intelligence suggesting a terrorist was targeting a specific flight, wouid it be racist to look more carefully at a middle eastern male on that flight than an elderly, hispanic woman from Iowa?
First, we have to agree to the definition. The ACLU defines racial profiling as "the practice of using race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion as the primary factor in deciding who to subject to law enforcement investigations. So, considering race in general and recognizing the race of Al Qaeda members and bank robbers in particular is necessary but not sufficient for racial profiling. You would have to actually investigate members of those respective races to some degree. Using your bank robber example, I think if police officers investigated any members of the described race and sex, then that would be racial profiling. Using your flight example, I think it would be wise to investigate everyone on that flight, not just someone who looks like a terrorist. After all, if racial profiling for "national security" concerns ramps up, the only terrorists left will be elderly hispanic women from Iowa.
Originally posted by billybobsky
Ah well so much for attempting a generally understood joke.
Sorry to ruin your fun... A smiley often helps determine joke from stupidity
Originally posted by Kickaha
No kidding.
We are at war with Eurasia.
We have always been at war with Eurasia.
Stop it or I'll put on tight-fitting shorts and throw a hammer at you.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Using your flight example, I think it would be wise to investigate everyone on that flight, not just someone who looks like a terrorist. After all, if racial profiling for "national security" concerns ramps up, the only terrorists left will be elderly hispanic women from Iowa.
And in my flight example I AM advocating investigating everyone thoroughly, but if you are going to trap the terrorists as I suggest, you may need to make some decisions based upon the known profile of al queda terrorists. That is, if I am going to replace some of the passengers with agents, I have to decide which ones. In such a case I would lean toward replacing the Hispanic grandmother from Iowa and positioning my agents near the Saudi Arabian graduate student.
Regardless of what constitutes racial profiling or just profiling, my original contention is that a real terrorist threat would be addressed much differently than we appear to be doing it. A real counter-terrorism operation wouldn't give a hoot about whether they are politically correct or not if the methodologies thwarted an attempt. And they certainly wouldn't just cancel flights, missing an opportunity to capture the bad guys and potentially exposing sources.
Fear = funding.
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
And in my flight example I AM advocating investigating everyone thoroughly, but if you are going to trap the terrorists as I suggest, you may need to make some decisions based upon the known profile of al queda terrorists. That is, if I am going to replace some of the passengers with agents, I have to decide which ones. In such a case I would lean toward replacing the Hispanic grandmother from Iowa and positioning my agents near the Saudi Arabian graduate student.
Regardless of what constitutes racial profiling or just profiling, my original contention is that a real terrorist threat would be addressed much differently than we appear to be doing it. A real counter-terrorism operation wouldn't give a hoot about whether they are politically correct or not if the methodologies thwarted an attempt. And they certainly wouldn't just cancel flights, missing an opportunity to capture the bad guys and potentially exposing sources.
Fear = funding.
Well that hinges entirely on just what you mean by "political correctness." Again, it's a useless term because it can describe anything that anyone wants. My point is that minorities and other targeted groups have rights that shouldn't be discarded because of some ambiguous "national security" concern. A real counter-terrorism operation should observe some pretty well-defined limits.
I hope that Saudi Arabian graduate student audibly voices anti-American sentiments, gets arrested, and then sues the pants off the government. Not because I want counter-terrorism efforts to fail. Rather, because I think a lot of the issues discarded as "political correctness" are valid.
EDIT: But I definitely agree that Bush may be trying to keep us in a constant state of fear and anxiety. Canceling flights, color-coded "terrorist" alerts, arresting people on the suspicion of "terrorism," and using "national security" to justify almost anything....
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/02/01/fli...led/index.html
If someone was on board and released a bioagent into the cabin, infecting everyone... game over.