JoinSign In
Forums
Chats
Clips
Search

The real terrorists

What a load of ... utter nonsense.

quote:

US to warn Americans in Europe to be vigilant due to increased terror threats

WASHINGTON (AP) — The State Department plans to caution Americans traveling in Europe to be vigilant because of heightened concerns about a potential al-Qaida terrorist attack aimed at U.S. citizens and Europeans.

The travel "alert" will be issued Sunday for travelers' guidance and is general in nature and will not focus on any specific country, location or tourist sites, senior U.S. officials told the Associated Press, speaking on condition of anonymity because no formal announcement had been made.

The action falls short of a formal "travel warning" which could have broader implications including a stronger likelihood of canceled airline and hotel bookings. It also will not urge travelers to stay away from public places — something Europeans and some members of the Obama administration had viewed as an overreaction.

The travel alert is a cumulative result of information the U.S. has received over an extended period, one of the officials said, noting that agencies are constantly monitoring a range of threats.

State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley declined to comment Saturday on the matter. But he said the administration remains focused on al-Qaida threats to U.S. interests and will take appropriate steps to protect Americans.

U.S. and European security experts for days have been concerned that terrorists may be plotting attacks in Europe with assault weapons on public places, similar to the deadly 2008 shooting spree in Mumbai, India. While intelligence agencies have viewed the threat as credible, they have not identified any specific targets that terrorists might be considering, the U.S. official said.

Source: AP News in Brief, Sunday, 3 Oct 2010

The only terrorists here are the US government, trying to spread unfounded fear into people. I am also afraid, that going on the safe side, the airports will make live to hell for travelers that week.
And for what? Germany and France said they have no such intelligence. (After all, US intelligence in the past turned out to be trustworthy ... right.)

And the idea of a bloke running through a European city with an 'Assault Rifle' is a bad joke.
 
Yes, I can see how a cautionary bulletin issued by the State Department constitutes premeditated, violent action against noncombatants and... OH MY GOD THE FRENCH ARE IN ON IT TOO!

quote:
France’s highest police official warned on Wednesday of a significant and “specific” risk of a terrorist attack on French soil from Al Qaeda’s North African affiliate.

“We have serious indications coming from reliable intelligence telling us that there’s significant risk of an attack,” Frédéric Pechenard, director of France’s national police, told a reporter on Europe 1 radio, adding that the Qaeda affiliate, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, “is targeting us in particular.”

“We’re currently seeing an undeniable high point in the threat” of an attack, Mr. Pechenard added, echoing statements by several other French officials in recent days.

What are we going to do?! These dastardly franco-merican terrorists are trying to keep their populations informed about potential risks! It's almost as though they want us to believe that in the last month seven French citizens were kidnapped by AQIM and Paris has experienced a rash of bomb threats. A TRAVEL ALERT JUST HIT THE EIFFEL TOWER OH THE HUMANITY!
 
Like (0 likes)
Yeah, Newro Sky has been reporting this for a few days and the Germans and French have been speaking about it publicly.

Sky news from 9/29

Kind of curious as to what you think the sinister motivation behind a travel warning is. That's a pretty common foreign office function, in fact the UK has a warning for Europe they offered at the same time.
 
Like (0 likes)
quote:
Originally posted by Newro:
And the idea of a bloke running through a European city with an 'Assault Rifle' is a bad joke.


Wouldn't the likelihood of that happening only increase with more Americans coming in?

*runs*
 
Like (0 likes)
I can confirm that the French terror-warnings are pure and utter bullshit.
The people are demonstrating about the reform of the retirement system, and the government is at its lowest popularity ever (because of several scandals over the Summer).
They desperately need to make themselves look better.
Making a big deal out of bomb-threats is a way to do that.

I mean... it's already been a month, and they have yet to find a single bomb (or terrorist).

So, yeah : terrorist threat, my ass.
 
Like (0 likes)
quote:
Originally posted by lithos:
Wouldn't the likelihood of that happening only increase with more Americans coming in?

*runs*


Only if they're from Texas.

quote:
Originally posted by ArkanGL:
I mean... it's already been a month, and they have yet to find a single bomb (or terrorist).

So, yeah : terrorist threat, my ass.


They arrested a German already.

And now this.
http://www.google.com/hostedne...J200?docId=D9IK7J200

Remember with this stuff that lack of immediately apparent evidence doesn't mean evidence does not exist. You have to entertain the idea that there really may be evidence that will take time to come out.
 
Like (0 likes)
quote:
Remember with this stuff that lack of immediately apparent evidence doesn't mean evidence does not exist. You have to entertain the idea that there really may be evidence that will take time to come out.


Since the aint Michel bombing in 1995, France has been under the 'vigipirate' plan.
It's a special counter-terrorist measure that warrants armed troops patrolling public places (train stations and airports) and reinforced security around schools (fences).

1995!

It got relaxed for a while (but never cancelled), but got reactivated after 9/11.

My point is : there's always some level of terrorist threat.
Obviously, you'll always find some whackos who want to blow stuff up to make a point.
I grew up in that kind of environment.
In the US, I understand it's still relatively new.
You learn to deal with it, and simply stop caring : yes you could die in a bombing. Then again, you also could win the lottery. Or you could find out that you're actually shitting golden poo.

That's what the secret services are for.
They stop the bad guys. No need to talk about it.
People already know that when there's a suspicious package in the subway, they have to call the relevant authorities.

When the government starts saying that we should be very afraid, that the threat is FOR REAL this time, that THEY ARE OUT TO GET US... that's when I get angry at them (the government).
They are not saying that kind of stuff to protect us.
Seriously. "Be very afraid." Who says that?
How can it possibly be for the greater good.

I call bullshit.
If things blow up, then you'll get to make fun of me.
Same if you win the lottery.

In the meantime, I am right until proven wrong. Smile
 
Like (0 likes)
It's governments pretending to do something, just like Arkan says.

What I wouldn't do is go on a cruise ship, no matter how safe they say it is. Those are gonna get hit.
 
Like (0 likes)
You want unsafe?

Eat Gulf of Mexico shellfish.

Be a Muslim and visit the United States of America. Be anything except a white Republican and visit Arizona.
 
Like (0 likes)
Well, we've actually got a 1-legged bomber in custody after he blew up a toilet and half his face. Belgian citizen to boot!
 
Like (0 likes)
Just because bombings and terrorist actions are more common in Europe than they are in the US doesn't mean that if there's intelligence that places frequented by Americans are at greater risk than usual, or the likelihood of incidents is higher than usual, they shouldn't let them know about it!


This is a slightly different matter than the ongoing retarded orange alert at the airports.
 
Like (0 likes)
quote:
Originally posted by editengine:
Kind of curious as to what you think the sinister motivation behind a travel warning is. That's a pretty common foreign office function, in fact the UK has a warning for Europe they offered at the same time.


1. Reputation. (Effecting income in tourism as well as financial markets.)
2. Stupid airport security. (Effectively terrorizing millions of innocent people.)
3. Spreading fear. (Terrorism only works because of stupid warning like that.)

quote:
Originally posted by ArkanGL:
My point is : there's always some level of terrorist threat.


Exactly!

Terrorism is an odd thing. Even on large scale it is highly ineffective as such. The chances of being killed by a terror attack is lower than being strike by lightning. For it to work, the fear of such an event must unproportionally outgrow the actual risk of such.

In English, blood lusting media is the tool of terrorism, not rifles.
 
Like (0 likes)
'Elections are coming. We have to show the people why they need us.'

'A few warnings and reminders of the Bad People Abroad will do, I think'

'But will those be unnerving enough to make people stay at home? We don't want to upset the market. The price on my shares on those damn airlines are already going down... and empty hotel rooms? My friends will be pissed!'

'After the warnings, we can always parade some patsy and tell people to go back to the mall, take that trip, Help The Economy. To relax and to be wary. To revel in their holidays with the locals but not to show their passports. To enjoy the fear.'

'It's a thankless job, isn't it?'

'It is, Sir.'
 
Like (0 likes)
Standing in line for security checks and getting scanned/wanded/even strip searched does NOT equal being "terrorized."

I understand it's a pain in the ass. My bras set off the dingers and I get treated with varying levels of severity depending on the kind of day security is having. Everyone gets pissy. People end up wasting hours of their time, and I don't like it any more than anyone else. I don't think it's set up to be particulary fair or effective. I resent having to check a bag because otherwise my fucking eyebrow tweezers will be confiscated.

But it's not anything like terrorism.
 
Like (0 likes)
quote:
But it's not anything like terrorism.


Does it make you feel safer?
 
Like (0 likes)
quote:
Originally posted by ArkanGL:
quote:
But it's not anything like terrorism.


Does it make you feel safer?


To know that I won't be at any big tourist-magnet sites in Europe in the next couple weeks? Yes.

Even the airport security fol-de-rol keeps a certain low-level fuck-up would-be bomber off the plane, which while it's not stopping the slightly-higher-level fuck-ups like the shoe guy and the underwear guy, is still doubtless preventing some amount of highjackings and bullshit.

Do I think it's possible that there's a better and more efficient way to do this that doesn't entail taking off my fucking shoes and waiting for a female officer to frisk me? yes, of course! But it's what we have right now.

I would not feel any safer, in fact I would feel a lot LESS safe, if we went back to the old ways in airports. I miss seeing people off at the gate, but that's the way it goes.

And as far as State Department warnings encouraging vigilance amongst tourists, that will make them a little more savvy and closer to their less-naive European counterparts, sounds like a good idea to me.
 
Like (0 likes)
quote:
Originally posted by ArkanGL:
quote:
But it's not anything like terrorism.


Does it make you feel safer?


In 2005 I guess I flew back from Munich to the US. Being Germany the security checks were pretty damn strict. Being a flight to the US, even more so. We did TWO x-ray checks rather than one, two security screenings, and then once at the gate we could not leave for any reason. It was a huge pain in the ass but the Germans are good at that shit and I was pretty comfortable with the people on the plane with me.
 
Like (0 likes)
quote:
Originally posted by theminx:
Standing in line for security checks and getting scanned/wanded/even strip searched does NOT equal being "terrorized."


I beg to differ.
 
Like (0 likes)
Though I don't think these precautions are necessary, for you to equate them with actually being terrorized belies a bias to the point of blindness.

You ever want a first hand demonstration of the difference between "Terror" and "Nuisance", let me know. It can be arrainged.

Seriously idiotic.

And I don't even believe there is an Al Queda.
 
Like (0 likes)
My point is : did you feel more endangered when you flying pre-9/11?

Terrorists were already targeting planes.
Everybody knew that.

I don't feel safer now.
I know I'm much more likely to die in a regular plane crash than in a terrorist plot.
It exactly the same before 9/11.

The only difference is a heightened awareness of the threat.

I think it's all bullshit.
Not a conspiracy.

Only scared kids being made aware of the possible monster under their bed, which they had no could be there.
Then they demand reassurance.
It goes on and on.

I find it deeply depressing.
 
Like (0 likes)
Never underestimate the potential for conspiracy...

... or the power of stupid people in large groups.

OBL = Emmanuel Goldstein.
 
Like (0 likes)
quote:
Originally posted by ArkanGL:


Only scared kids being made aware of the possible monster under their bed, which they had no could be there.
Then they demand reassurance.
It goes on and on.

I find it deeply depressing.


You guys are really overthinking this. Air crashes don't destabilize economies, terror attacks do. And they still represent deaths that can be avoided at the cost of nothing more than money and time. If that is all it takes, then why not? And before you say it isn't effective, recall that throughout the 70's, 80's, and 90's hijackings and attacks at airports were pretty common throughout the world. They don't really happen any longer do they? It's not because people like us any better, I can tell you that.
 
Like (0 likes)
Well.... It's kind of like getting a concecaled/carry permit, then putting on a tee-shirt that says "I am carrying a loaded weapon" under your shoulder harness and walking into a Starbucks to order a lattee.

You're not doing it for your protection, you're doing it to make a point.

and I would argue that air crashes and terror attacks have the same impact on an economy, until the talking heads start barking at the ignorant masses.
 
Like (0 likes)
quote:
They don't really happen any longer do they?


Yes. All thanks to cockpits now having a real door. With a lock.
 
Like (0 likes)
quote:
Originally posted by ArkanGL:
My point is : did you feel more endangered when you flying pre-9/11?


Nope - I was more worried flying on a transatlantic flight on the 10th anniversary of Lockerbee.

Restricting my toiletries to minimal amounts and putting them in a ziplock bag certainly doesn't make me feel safer.

Neither does taking off my shoes.
 
Like (0 likes)
But I do feel more endagered at one train station. It's the busiest station in Denmark, underground, and it could be a prime target for terror.

If there's a long wait for my train, I take a different train to the next station and wait there instead.
 
Like (0 likes)
quote:
Originally posted by editengine:
quote:
Originally posted by ArkanGL:


Only scared kids being made aware of the possible monster under their bed, which they had no could be there.
Then they demand reassurance.
It goes on and on.

I find it deeply depressing.


You guys are really overthinking this. Air crashes don't destabilize economies, terror attacks do. And they still represent deaths that can be avoided at the cost of nothing more than money and time. If that is all it takes, then why not?


Money and time are in finite supply. Using 1/20th of that money and 1/4 of that time, we could get every drunk driver off the road. Drunk drivers cause terror. A lot more of it.

And economies?

We could get the fuck out of Iraq AND Afghanistan now, save trillions of dollars, thousands of lives and maybe our economies would bounce back and people wouldn't have to go through the terror of losing a job, family or house. Un-winnable wars are terror. Not that the winnable ones aren't.

This latest bullshit isn't about terror, though. It's about politics. Elections. It's the new kissing babies and eating pie.
 
Like (0 likes)
 
Like (0 likes)
Fuck the bloggers.
 
Like (0 likes)
quote:
Originally posted by Trogdor:
Money and time are in finite supply. Using 1/20th of that money and 1/4 of that time, we could get every drunk driver off the road. Drunk drivers cause terror. A lot more of it.


If you can tell me how I'm listening. The Girl got a DUI two years ago and she is still paying for it. Unless you can pay people to make better decisions when they're hammered drunk, drunk drivers are going to happen. Local communities make a ton of money off DUI enforcement. With all of the enforcement going on why have DUI numbers not been declining? It's profitable for one thing, and it is in human nature to make stupid decision when you're lit like an Irishman at Christmas.

quote:
Originally posted by ArkanGL:
quote:
They don't really happen any longer do they?


Yes. All thanks to cockpits now having a real door. With a lock.


Remember that was a big deal though. People didn't want it, they wanted to see the pilot. The addition of locks was hugely controversial when it was proposed prior to 9/11.

Security bs has its reasons too. Uniformity, minimizing extraneous crap you have to check, concentric, repeated security checks, all are pretty standard security measures for a reason. Is it effective in detail? Not always, but as a whole it allows for a standardization of the very tedious process of security that makes it all more effective. There are a few people here that are involved with professional, real security that can speak about it better but I will give you a bs example from working at the bars. Not the same scale by any means but bear with me. I worked the back door of a big nightclub for a while. No initial entry, just re-entry. You go in the front, show your ID, get a band and walk in. My door was the exit and if you wanted you could go back in. I would then recheck your ID. Why? I got into a lot of 'discussions' with people about that. They had already been in. Already shown ID. Left it in their purse or with a friend why did they need to show it again. It was petty, and pointless, and frustrating for them. I also caught a ton of people that were trying to sneak in without ID. It is the nature of security, you miss shit the first time, so you do it again. We did that just to stop kids from getting into a freaking bar, why not do it for people getting on a flying bomb?

Today you will have a very difficult time getting explosives aboard a plane where the tedious security procedures are being adhered to. It might happen but it would take time and money to plan and execute and without a good chance of success why expend the effort?

Especially when you can toss a grenade into a crowded market full of tourists in your own country?
 
Like (0 likes)
All the people who've ever died because of drunk drivers, plus all their families, friends, etc. are also still paying for DUIs. Not their own. Other people's DUIs.

In my experience, and I have a lot of experience with this, people who complain about the onerous burden of a DUI arrest are people who believe their right to drive a 3500+pound projectile around the streets while impaired outweighs everyone else's right to live.

Just sayin'.
 
Like (0 likes)
quote:
Originally posted by Splitcoil:
All the people who've ever died because of drunk drivers, plus all their families, friends, etc. are also still paying for DUIs. Not their own. Other people's DUIs.

In my experience, and I have a lot of experience with this, people who complain about the onerous burden of a DUI arrest are people who believe their right to drive a 3500+pound projectile around the streets while impaired outweighs everyone else's right to live.

Just sayin'.


You're right, my problem with it is that it doesn't seem to be effective. If DUI enforcement was working wouldn't we see a decline in DUI rates? We're way off topic, I just wondered how throwing money at it might help.
 
Like (0 likes)
There's *been* a decline in alcohol related fatalities since 1982. http://www.alcoholalert.com/dr...ving-statistics.html

I'm looking for stats on non-fatal DUI rates (haven't found them yet), but I can think of a few causes for DUI rates going up while fatalities go down. Law enforcement strategies preventing people who drive drunk from causing fatalities, for example.

You get the DUI rates to go down by getting people treatment for alcoholism or educating them on how to be responsible drinkers in the first place, which is a field that definitely doesn't have enough money thrown at it (having worked in that field, on the research/advocacy side, myself).
 
Like (0 likes)
The whole "driving to the bar to have a drink" scenario just doesn't even compute for me.

Stop the freaking suburban sprawl, improve transit, something. You should only *go* to a bar by transit, taxi, or on foot. Or with a designated driver that sticks to the bargain.
 
Like (0 likes)
Back on topic, they've arrested 12 in France today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10...?partner=rss&emc=rss
 
Like (0 likes)
quote:
Originally posted by theminx:
Back on topic, they've arrested 12 in France today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10...?partner=rss&emc=rss


Good. And that was all the news that was necessary in the first place.
 
Like (0 likes)
quote:
I'm looking for stats on non-fatal DUI rates


You prob won't find good ones. Most are misdemeanors and the courts treat them as traffic citations unless there is an injury involved and I don't know of any DoJ stats on traffic infractions. It would be like keeping track of how many speeding tickets are issued. Fatal DUI crashes are declining, although not as fast as overall fatalities are declining, which suggests that DUI's in general aren't slacking off, just that fewer people are dying from them.

Keep in mind unless there is an injury, just like driving while texting or speeding, there is no crime involved. How is one stupid behavior so different from the others? After all speeding and drunks are the two biggest killers on the roads, why is a DUI ticket stigmatized while a speeding ticket gives you bragging rights?.

Good, I suppose, to see France really wasn't blowing smoke up the world's butt. Speaking of different types of terror attacks it seems like there are fads out there in what to blow up. It used to be hijckings, then I remember a whole spate of ticket counter shootings where people waiting to check their bags for a flight would be sprayed with bullets, then there was the naval period where smaller cruise ships would be hijacked. Ever since Spain there has been a focus on transit systems. Is there really a terror target picking style? Who decides these things? Is there a Vera Wang of terror attacks that decides each fall what that seasons favorite target will be?

"Buses people! Buses! Everybody will blow themselves up on buses this year! Get those hemlines above the ankle so you can mingle in and find a good seat on the aisle!"
 
Like (0 likes)
The "target" governments release a list of "expendable options". Letting the gardner know where the weeds are....
 
Like (0 likes)
I thought this was just a reaction to the US economy down the shitter, and them wanting to spread the love around.
 
Like (0 likes)
lol.... "Mutually Assured Destabilization".
 
Like (0 likes)
 
Post Reply
 
 
Powered By Hoop.la